[Federal Register: December 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 248)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 79225-79254]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24de08-33]
[[Page 79225]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Three Foreign
Bird Species From Latin America and the Caribbean as Endangered
Throughout Their Range; Proposed Rule
[[Page 79226]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-IA-2008-0117; 96100-1671-0000-B6]
RIN 1018-AV76
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Three
Foreign Bird Species From Latin America and the Caribbean as Endangered
Throughout Their Range
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list three species of birds from Latin America and the Caribbean--the
Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus), the Chilean woodstar (Eulidia
yarrellii), and the St. Lucia forest thrush (Cichlherminia lherminieri
sanctaeluciae)--as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This proposal, if made
final, would extend the Act's protection to these species. The Service
seeks data and comments from the public on this proposed rule.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
February 23, 2009. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by February 9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-IA-2008-0117; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept comments by e-mail or fax. We will post all
comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public
Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie Gnam, Division of Scientific
Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room
110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-1708; facsimile 703-358-
2276. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the taxonomy, range,
distribution, and population size of these species, including the
locations of any additional populations of these species.
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species.
(4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these
species and possible impacts of these activities on these species.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-1708.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to make a finding (known
as a ``90-day finding'') on whether a petition to add a species to,
remove a species from, or reclassify a species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants has presented substantial
information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. To
the maximum extent practicable, the finding must be made within 90 days
following receipt of the petition and published promptly in the Federal
Register. If we find that the petition has presented substantial
information indicating that the requested action may be warranted (a
positive finding), section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to
commence a status review of the species if one has not already been
initiated under our internal candidate assessment process. In addition,
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires us to make a finding within 12
months following receipt of the petition on whether the requested
action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by
higher priority listing actions (this finding is referred to as the
``12-month finding''). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a
finding of warranted but precluded for petitioned species should be
treated as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted but
precluded finding, and is, therefore, subject to a new finding within 1
year and subsequently thereafter until we publish a proposal to list or
a finding that the petitioned action is not warranted. The Service
publishes an annual notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual
notice) for all foreign species for which listings were previously
found to be warranted but precluded.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 24, 1980, we received a petition (1980 petition) from
Dr. Warren B. King, Chairman of the International Council for Bird
Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign bird species to the List of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)), including two
species (the Chilean woodstar and the St. Lucia forest thrush) that are
the subject of this proposed rule. In response to the 1980 petition, we
published a positive 90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464), for
58 foreign species, noting that 2 of the foreign species identified in
the petition were already listed under the Act, and initiated a status
review. On January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485), we published a 12-month
finding within an annual review on pending petitions and description of
progress on all species petition findings addressed therein. In that
notice, we found that all 58 foreign bird species from the 1980
petition were warranted but precluded by higher priority listing
actions. On May 10, 1985, we published the first annual notice (50 FR
19761), in which we continued to find that listing all 58 foreign bird
species from the 1980
[[Page 79227]]
petition was warranted but precluded. In our next annual notice,
published on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996), we found that listing 54
species from the 1980 petition, including the 2 species that are the
subject of this proposed rule, continued to be warranted but precluded,
whereas new information caused us to find that listing 4 other species
in the 1980 petition was no longer warranted. We published additional
annual notices on the remaining 54 species included in the 1980
petition on July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR
52746); and November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664), in which we indicated that
the Chilean woodstar and the St. Lucia forest thrush, along with the
remaining species in the 1980 petition, continued to be warranted but
precluded.
On May 6, 1991, we received a petition (hereafter referred to as
the 1991 petition) from ICBP, to add 53 species of foreign birds to the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, including the Andean
flamingo, also the subject of this proposed rule. In response to the
1991 petition, we published a positive 90-day finding on December 16,
1991 (56 FR 65207), for all 53 species, and announced the initiation of
a status review. On March 28, 1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a 12-
month finding on the 1991 petition, along with a proposed rule to list
30 African birds under the Act (15 each from the 1980 petition and 1991
petition). In that document, we announced our finding that listing the
remaining 38 species from the 1991 petition, including Andean flamingo,
was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. On
January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2899), we published the final rule to list the
30 African birds and reiterated the warranted-but-precluded status of
the remaining species from the 1991 petition. We made subsequent
warranted-but-precluded findings for all outstanding foreign species
from the 1980 and 1991 petitions, including the three species that are
the subject of this proposed rule, as published in our annual notice of
review (ANOR) on May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354), and April 23, 2007 (72 FR
20184).
Per the Service's listing priority guidelines (September 21, 1983;
48 FR 43098), our 2007 ANOR identified the listing priority numbers
(LPNs) (ranging from 1 to 12) for all outstanding foreign species. The
LPNs for the three species of birds in this proposed rule are as
follows: Andean flamingo (LPN 2), Chilean woodstar (LPN 4), and St.
Lucia forest thrush (LPN 3).
On January 23, 2008, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California ordered the Service to issue proposed
listing rules for five foreign bird species, actions which had been
previously determined to be warranted but precluded: Andean flamingo
(Phoenicoparrus andinus), black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis
nigrivestis), Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii), medium tree finch
(Camarhynchus pauper), and St. Lucia forest thrush (Cichlherminia
lherminieri sanctaeluciae). The court ordered the Service to issue
proposed listing rules for these species by the end of 2008.
On July 29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we published in the Federal
Register a notice announcing our annual petition findings for foreign
species. In that notice, we announced listing to be warranted for 30
foreign bird species, including the 5 species that are subject to the
January 23, 2008, court order and the 3 species which are the subject
of this proposed rule. The medium tree finch and black-breasted puffleg
are the subject of separate proposed rules, which published in the
Federal Register on December 8, 2008 (73 FR 74434 and 73 FR 74427,
respectively).
Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
Below is a species-by-species analysis of these five factors. The
species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning with the Andean
flamingo, and followed by the Chilean woodstar and the St. Lucia forest
thrush.
I. Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus)
Species Description
Flamingos (Phoenicopteridae) are gregarious, long-lived birds that
inhabit saline wetlands and breed in colonies (del Hoyo 1992, pp. 509-
519; Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 277). The Andean flamingo is the largest
member of the Phoenicopteridae family in South America, reaching an
adult height of 3.5 feet (ft) (110 centimeters (cm)) (Fjelds[aring] and
Krabbe 1990, p. 86). This waterbird is native to low-, medium-, and
high-altitude wetlands in the Andean regions of Argentina, Bolivia,
Chile, and Peru (BirdLife International (BLI) 2008, p. 1; del Hoyo
1992, p. 526), where it is locally known as ``flamenco andino,''
``parina grande,'' ``pariguana,'' ``pariwana,'' and ``chururu'' (BLI
2006, p. 1; Castro and Varela 1992, p. 26; Davison 2007, p. 2; del Hoyo
1992, p. 526; S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 185).
An adult Andean flamingo has a pale yellow face and pale pink
coloring overall. Its upper plumage is brighter pink, with a deeper
pink to wine red-colored neck, breast, and wing-coverts (feathers on
the upper wing), and prominent black tertial feathers (feathers on the
posterior portion of the wing). The bill is pale yellow with a black
tip, and the legs and feet are yellow (BLI 2008, p. 1; del Hoyo 1992,
p. 526). Young Andean flamingos are grayish in color and achieve full
adult plumage in their third year (del Hoyo 1992, p. 526).
Andean flamingo is one of three flamingo species that is endemic to
the high Andes of South America (Johnson et al. 1958, p. 299; Johnson
1967, p. 404; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 508; Line 2004, pp. 1-2; Caziani
et al. 2007, p. 277; Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2). All flamingos have
pink plumage to varying degrees (del Hoyo 1992, p. 508). The Andean
flamingo is distinguished from other South American flamingos by its
size (being the largest in the area), leg coloring (being the only
flamingo with yellow legs), and wing coloring (having prominent black
tertial feathers that form a ``V'' when the flamingo is not in flight)
(BLI 2008, p. 1; del Hoyo 1992, p. 526). Andean flamingos are long-
lived (see Habitat and Life History) (BLI 2008, p. 2; del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 517).
Taxonomy
The Andean flamingo was first taxonomically described as
Phoenicopterus andinus (Phoenicopteridae family), by Rodulfo Philippi
in 1854 (Philippi 1860, p. 164; Hellmayr 1932, p. 448). In 1856,
Bonaparte split the genus Phoenicopterus, placing the Andean flamingo
in a separate genus, as Phoenicoparrus andinus, along with the
sympatric (species inhabiting the same or overlapping geographical
areas) James' flamingos (P. jamesi) (Hellmayr and Conover 1948, pp.
273-278; Jenkin 1957, p. 405). In 1990, Sibley and Monroe (1990, p.
311) suggested the Andean flamingo should be returned to the genus
Phoenicopterus, based on the
[[Page 79228]]
close genetic relatedness among all flamingo species (Sibley and
Ahlquist 1989, as cited in Ramsen et al. 2007, p. 18). However, many
contemporary researchers maintain that the Andean flamingo should
remain within the genus Phoenicoparrus, based on bill morphology and
the lack of a hind toe (BLI 2008, p. 1; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 276;
del Hoyo et al. 1992, pp. 508-509; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p.
86; Mascitti and Kravetz 2002, pp. 73-83; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 110).
Therefore, we accept the species as Phoenicoparrus andinus, which is
also consistent with the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) species database
(UNEP-WCMC 2008b, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
Andean flamingos are native to the Andes Mountains, from southern
Peru and southwestern Bolivia to northern Chile and northwestern
Argentina. They occupy shallow wetlands, collectively called salars,
that are characterized as shallow, often saline, lakes (known locally
as ``lagos'' or ``lagunas'') with exposed salt-flats or mudflats (Boyle
et al. 2004, pp. 563-564; Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 277; Hurlbert and
Keith 1979, pp. 328). Andean flamingos also inhabit ``bofedales,''
which are described as wet, marshy, perennial meadowlands (de la Fuente
2002, p. 1; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, p. 1). These wetlands are found at
various elevations, including: (1) The high Andes, referred to as
``altiplanos'' (Spanish for ``high plains''), generally above 13,123 ft
(4,000 meters (m)); (2) the ``puna'' (Spanish for ``highlands''),
between 9,843 and 13,123 ft (3,000 and 4,000 m); and (3) the lowlands,
below 9,843 ft (3,000 m) (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 103; Caziani et al.
2007, p. 278). Andean flamingos generally occupy wetlands that are less
than 3 ft (1 m) deep (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Mascitti
and Caste[ntilde]era 2006, p. 331).
Most of the wetlands in which Andean flamingos are found are
``endoreic,'' ``endorheic,'' or closed. This refers to internally-
draining water networks prevalent in the Andes that are characterized
by rivers or bodies of water that do not drain into the sea, but either
dry up or terminate in a basin (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 103; Hurlbert
and Keith 1979, p. 328). The water levels at these basins expand and
contract seasonally and depend in large part on summer rains to
``recharge'' or refill them (Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani and
Derlindati 2000, pp. 124-125; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110; Mascitti and
Caziani 1997, p. 328).
Andean flamingos are altitudinal and opportunistic migrants
(Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 190). During the summer (December to
January), Andean flamingos generally reside in the puna and altiplano
regions of the Andes, at elevations between 11,483 and 14,764 ft (3,500
and 4,500 m). In the winter, they may move to lower elevations--down to
210 ft (64 m) above sea level--along the Peruvian coast and inland to
the central plains of Argentina and Bolivia (Blake 1977, p. 207; BLI
2008, pp. 1 and 6; Boyle et al. 2004, pp. 563-564, 570-571; Bucher
1992, p. 182; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2006. p. 17;
Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 277, 279, 281; del Hoyo 1992, p. 514, 519;
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and Keith 1979, pp. 330;
Kahl 1975, pp. 99-101; Mascitti and Bonaventura 2002, p. 360; Mascitti
and Casta[ntilde]era 2006, p. 328).
They disperse widely, even while nesting, and can travel long
distances, flying from 249 mi (400 km) to 715 mi (1,150 km) daily
(Caziani et al. 2003, p. 11; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 277; Conway 2000,
p. 212; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 509-519; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p.
85). Their movements are unpredictable and appear to be influenced by
varying environmental conditions affecting the availability of wetlands
(Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, p. 514 and 516;
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). When climatic conditions are
favorable, breeding takes place, and when climatic conditions are
unfavorable, breeding is abandoned, very limited, or takes place at
alternative, less-productive breeding grounds (e.g., Bucher et al.
2000, pp. 119-120).
All flamingos are believed to be monogamous, with a strong pair-
bonding tendency that may be maintained from one breeding season to the
next (del Hoyo 1992, p. 514). Andean flamingos nest at high densities,
with breeding colonies consisting of up to thousands of pairs (del Hoyo
1992, p. 526). Andean flamingos reach sexual maturity between 3 and 5
years of age (Bucher 1992, p. 183). Breeding season for the Andean
flamingo occurs in the summer, generally from December through February
(BLI 2008, p. 2; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 516; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe
1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and Keith 1979, pp. 328), although the breeding
season may begin as early as October and continue through April
(Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 190). Both sexes share in nest-building
and nesting (Bucher 1992, p. 182). Nests are built on the miry clay or
transient islands of shallow lakes (del Hoyo 1992, pp. 514, 516). Each
nest consists of a clay mound, up to 16 inches (in) (40 cm) high, with
a small depression on top (del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 516; Fjelds[aring]
and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). Flamingos lay a single white egg, usually in
December or January, and incubation lasts about 28 days (del Hoyo et
al. 1992, p. 526). If the egg is destroyed from flooding or predation,
the pair may re-clutch (lay a replacement egg), but only if the loss
occurs within a few days of the first egg being laid (del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 516).
Chicks remain in the nest 5-12 days, during which time both the
parents feed the chick with ``milk'' secretions formed by glands in
their upper digestive tracts (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; del
Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 513). Feeding is shared by parents, in
approximately 24-hour shifts (Bucher 1992, p. 182). When flamingo
chicks leave the nest, they form large nursery cr[egrave]ches (groups)
of hundreds or thousands of birds that are tended by a few adults (del
Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 516).
Flamingo breeding habits can vary widely from year to year.
Flamingos may breed in large numbers for 2 or more successive years,
followed by other years in which there is no known breeding. Not all
sexually mature adults breed every year and, even in years of breeding,
not all sexually mature adults will participate (Bucher 1992, p. 183).
Flamingos are generally considered to have poor breeding success
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85) and Andean flamingos, in
particular, have experienced periods of very low breeding success over
the past twenty years (Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2) (See Population
Estimates, below). Juvenile mortality rates during dispersal are
unknown (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 284), and adult survival is considered
to be ``very high'' (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). Andean
flamingos are long-lived, with an average lifespan of 20 to 30 years.
Some wild adults live up to 50 years (BLI 2008, p. 2; del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 517). Recent trends in breeding success are further discussed
under Population Estimates, below.
Andean flamingos are wading filter-feeders, often forming large
feeding flocks at wetlands alongside sympatric flamingos, Chilean
flamingos (Phoenicopterus chilensis), and James' flamingos (del Hoyo
1992, p. 512; Mascitti and Casta[ntilde]era 2006, pp. 328-329). Andean
flamingos feed principally on diatoms (microscopic one-celled or
colonial algae) (Mascitti and Kravetz 2002, p. 78), especially those in
the genus Surirella (no common name), which is a dominant component of
surface sediments at the bottom of many altiplano lakes in the Andes
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Hurlbert and Chang 1983, p.
4768).
[[Page 79229]]
Historical Range and Distribution
The Andean flamingo type specimen (the specimen that was first
described by Philippi in 1854) was collected from Salar de Atacama, in
Antofagasta Province (Chile) (Hellmayr 1932, p. 312). Salar de Atacama
is, therefore, referred to as the ``type locality.'' The species was
subsequently reported in Argentina in 1872 (Provinces of Jujuy and
Tucum[aacute]n) (Burmeister 1872, p. 364; Hellmayr and Conover 1948, p.
277), Peru (Departments of Salinas and Arequipa) in 1886 (Hellmayr
1932, p 312; Hellmayr and Conover 1948, p. 277; Weberbauer 1911, p.
27), and Bolivia in 1902 (Department of Oruru) (Hellmayr and Conover
1948, p. 277; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 289).
The species' movements and distribution within its range were not
understood throughout much of the 20th century. Early researchers
considered the Andean flamingo to be relatively sedentary (Jenkin 1957,
p. 405; Johnson et al. 1958, pp. 297-298), with a distribution that did
not extend below 10,000 ft (3,048 m) (Hellmayr 1932, p. 25; Johnson
1967, p. 405). Later researchers remarked on the nomadic nature of the
species (McFarlane 1975, p. 88) and reported lower limits to the
species' distribution (i.e., 8,200 ft (2,500 m)) (Kahl 1975; pp. 99-
100). Hurlbert and Keith (1979, pp. 334, 336) noted a seasonal variance
in the species' altitudinal distribution, and Bucher (1992, p. 182)
noted that migration might take place between Chilean breeding grounds
and Argentinian wetlands.
Current Range and Distribution
The current range of the Andean flamingo extends from Peru, through
Chile and Bolivia, to Argentina, in wetlands at elevations ranging from
210 to 14,764 ft (64 to 4,500 m) (BLI 2008, pp. 1, 6; Bucher 1992, p.
192; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 514; Fjelds[aring]
and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). In 1989, an immature Andean flamingo--that had
been banded in Chile earlier that year--was captured in Brazil (Sick
1993, p. 154). There were additional sightings of the Andean flamingo
in Brazil in the 1990s (Bornschein and Reinert 1996, p. 807-808).
However, the species is considered a non-breeding ``vagrant'' in Brazil
(BLI 2008, p. 5).
Its total extent of occurrence (including sites where breeding does
not occur) is estimated as 124,711 square miles (mi2)
(323,000 square kilometers (km2)). The estimated area in
which the species is known to breed and reside year-round is 72,973
square miles (mi2) (189,000 square kilometers
(km2)) (BLI 2008, p. 4).
Their seemingly erratic movements and ability to disperse widely,
combined with the harsh climatic conditions and the inaccessibility of
their habitat, have made it difficult for researchers to fully
understand their seasonal movements and breeding habits (Bucher et al.
2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 514; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p.
85) (see also Habitat and Life History, above). Researchers have long
considered Chilean wetlands to be the primary breeding grounds for the
species (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, pp. 1-4;
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296; Kahl
1975 p. 100). Researchers have only recently confirmed that the species
is an altitudinal and opportunistic migrant (Goldfeder and Blanco 2007,
p. 190). Simultaneous censuses undertaken since 1997 confirmed that
Andean flamingos migrate altitudinally. In the summer, most of the
population is concentrated primarily in Chile, and to a lesser extent
in Argentina and Bolivia. In winter, the species may converge in
certain Chilean and Peruvian wetlands (Valqui et al. 2000, p. 111),
with relatively large numbers of birds overwintering in Bolivia and
Argentina in some years (Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 279, 281). Recent
banding studies confirmed that Andean flamingos at high-altitude
wetlands move to lower altitude lakes, where weather conditions are
less severe (Rocha and Rodriguez 2006, p. 12).
Andean flamingos occupy some wetlands year round (where they may or
may not breed), some wetlands only during the summer breeding season,
and other wetlands only in winter (see Table 1). Recent research
established that there is an important, complementary link between
breeding and non-breeding wetlands frequented by Andean flamingos
(Derlandati 2008, p. 10). Research in Argentina at highland (breeding)
and lowland (non-breeding) sites indicated that, regardless of season,
Andean flamingos spend the majority of their time eating (Derlandati
2008, p. 10). They will travel to different wetlands to feed, even
while nesting (Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 277; Conway
2000, p. 212; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 509-519). Research in Argentina at
high-elevation breeding sites and low-elevation non-breeding sites
indicated that breeding displays at lowland sites were important
precursors to successful breeding at high altitude sites (Derlandati
2008, p. 10).
Several Andean flamingo localities in each range country are
described below and in Table 1, organized in alphabetical order by
country and name of wetland. This is not an exhaustive accounting of
all known wetlands occupied by the species, but includes sites that are
frequented by the species or are otherwise notable, such as recently
discovered breeding sites. In Table 1, ``Type'' indicates whether the
site is known as a breeding (B) or non-breeding (NB) wetland. In most
cases, NB indicates that the species overwinters at the wetland.
However, in some cases, Andean flamingos occupy a wetland year-round,
but no breeding occurs there. Habitat information was obtained
primarily from Ducks Unlimited (2007a-d) and BirdLife International
(2008).
Table 1--Selected Andean Flamingo Nesting and Overwintering Wetlands in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elevation in feet/ Area in acres/
Country Wetland Department meters hectares Type Description/comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina....................... Laguna Brava...... La Rioja.......... 13,780 ft/4,200 m. 1,977 ac/800 ha... B/NB Large lake associated
with an endoreic
(closed) river basin
that includes Laguna
de Mulas Muertas.
Argentina....................... Laguna de Santa Fe.......... 276-295 ft/84-90 m 29,653 ac/12,000 NB One of two lowest-
Melincu[eacute]. ha. elevation endoreic
wetlands frequented by
Andean flamingos.
Argentina....................... Lagunas de los Catamarca......... 13,911 ft/4,240 m. 343 ac/139 ha..... B/NB Shallow lagoon in a
Aparejos. larger lagoon system
that is lacking in
aquatic vegetation.
[[Page 79230]]
Argentina....................... Laguna de Mar C[oacute]rdoba.... 210-230 ft/64-70 m 494,211 ac/200,000 B/NB This large, permanent,
Chiquita. ha. hypersaline,
seasonally fluctuating
lake is the lowest-
elevation locality.
Argentina....................... Laguna de Mulas La Rioja.......... 13,123 ft/4,000 m. 1730 ac/700 ha.... NB Located near and part
Muertas. of the same endoreic
river basin as Laguna
Brava.
Argentina....................... Laguna de Pozuelos Jujuy............. 11,483 ft/3,500 m. 24,710 ac/10,000 B/NB Central lake within
ha. endoreic basin with
lower water levels and
extensive mudflats in
winter.
Argentina....................... Laguna Guayatayoc. Jujuy............. 12,008 ft/3,660 m. 247,104 ac/100,000 NB Part of large salt
ha. basin where endoreic
waters form shallow,
brackish to
hypersaline lakes.
Argentina....................... Laguna Vilama..... Jujuy............. 14,436 ft/4,400 m. 19,768 ac/8,000 ha B/NB Large, permanent
endoreic lake, prone
to wide water
fluctuations and
winter freezes.
Bolivia......................... Lago Poop[oacute]. Oruru............. 12,090 ft/3,685 m. 330,380 ac/133,700 NB Large, shallow saline
ha. lake in same ancient
endoreic river basin
as Lago Uru Uru.
Bolivia......................... Lago Uru Uru...... Oruru............. 12,126 ft/3,696 m. 69,190 ac/28,000 NB Along with Lago
ha. Poop[oacute],
experiences wide
fluctuations in water
level.
Bolivia......................... Laguna Colorada... Potos[iacute]..... 13,944 ft/4,250 m. 12,948 ac/ 5,240 B/NB Hypersaline endoreic
ha. lake fed by streams
and thermal springs,
with shores that
freeze at night.
Bolivia......................... Laguna Kalina or Potos[iacute]..... 14,862 ft/4,530 m. 3,954 ac/1,600 ha. B/NB Hypersaline lake
Busch. associated with the
same endoreic water
basin as Laguna
Colorada.
Bolivia......................... Laguna de Pastos Oruru............. 13-15,000 ft/4- 37,066 ac/15,000 B/NB Group of small,
Grandes. 4,500 m. ha. permanent saline lakes
in an ancient caldera
fed by underground
sources.
Bolivia......................... Salar de Chalviri. Potos[iacute]..... 14,396 ft/4,388 m. 28,417 ac/11,500 NB Basin of many small
ha. lakes separated by
saltflats; fed by
small streams and
thermal springs.
Bolivia......................... Salar de Coipasa.. Oruru............. 12,112 ft/3,692... 548,077 ac/221,800 B/NB Large salt basin and
ha. shallow hypersaline
lake, receiving water
from R[iacute]o Lauca.
Chile........................... Lago del Negro Atacama........... 13,123 ft/4,000 m. 6,919 ac/2,800 ha. B/NB Large high-altitude
Francisco. permanent lake
surrounded by
bofedales.
Chile........................... Salar de Antofagasta....... 12,211 ft/ 3,722 m 93,406 ac/37,800 B/NB High-altitude salt
Ascot[aacute]n. ha. basin with many saline
lakes on perimeter,
fed by several
freshwater springs.
Chile........................... Salar de Atacama.. Antofagasta....... 7,546 ft/2,300 m.. 691,895 ac/280,000 B/NB Endoreic salt basin
ha. with fluctuating water
levels from summer
storms and snowmelt.
Chile........................... Salar de Coposa... Tarapac[aacute]... 12,376 ft/3,730 m. 21,003 ac/8,500 ha B/NB Endoreic salt with
small lagoon that
fluctuates greatly in
size.
Chile........................... Salar de Huasco... Tarapac[aacute]... 13,123 ft/4,000 m. 14,826 ac/ 6,000 B/NB Salt basin receiving
ha. summer rains and fed
by snow melt bogs and
bofedales.
Chile........................... Salar de Surire... Tarapac[aacute]... 13,583 ft/4,140 m. 61,776 ac/25,000 B/NB Permanent saline lake.
ha.
Peru............................ Lago Parinacochas. Ayacucho.......... 10,738 ft/3,273 m. 16,556 ac/6,700 ha NB Shallow, large brackish
endoreic lake and
marshes with exposed
salt flats in dry
season.
Peru............................ Laguna de Puno.............. 15,299 ft/4,663 m. 8525 ac/3,450 ha.. NB Permanent, shallow
Loriscota. hypersaline lake
surrounded by
bofedales.
Peru............................ Laguna Salinas.... Arequipa.......... 14,091 ft/4,295 m. 17,544 ac/7,100 ha NB Semi-permanent, shallow
hypersaline lake with
freshwater springs and
bofedales on
perimeter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina: Several wetlands in Argentina provide year-round habitat
for the Andean flamingo (see Table 1). The species breeds and
overwinters regularly at Laguna de Pozuelos and Lagunas de Vilama
(Caziani & Derlandati 2000, p. 121; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 113;
Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Ducks
Unlimited 2007a, pp. 1-4). The Vilama wetlands system (Lagunas de
Vilama) is comprised of nine lakes: Arenal, Caiti, Catal, Cerro Negro,
Colpayoc, Isla Grande, Palar, Pululos, and Vilama (Caziani and
Derlindati 2000, p. 122;
[[Page 79231]]
Caziani et al. 2001, p. 103). During a 3-year study, Andean flamingos
occupied 8 of the 9 lakes, but were especially concentrated on Laguna
Vilama and Laguna Catal (Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p. 125). Caziani
et al. 2001 (p. 104) determined that the Vilama wetland system provided
a variety of spatial and seasonal ecological conditions on the
landscape level, such that a range of options existed from which Andean
flamingos could select habitat at any given time during the year. They
further suggest that similar landscape-level relationships between
wetlands exist, even when the wetlands are not located within the same
basin (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110). The Lagunas de Vilama wetland has
harbored up to 30 percent of Andean flamingos during the breeding
season (Caziani & Derlandati 2000, p. 121; Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13).
In recent decades, the species has nested or overwintered in
locations not previously recorded. In January 1998, the first account
of Andean flamingos nesting was reported at Laguna Brava (Bucher et al.
2000, p. 119). Long known as an overwintering site for the species
(Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279), Laguna Brava has continued to provide
isolated nesting sites (de la Fuente 2002, p. 6). Also in January 1998,
large numbers of non-breeding birds were reported at Laguna de Mulas
Muertas, just 4 mi (7 km) from Laguna Brava (Bucher et al. 2000, p.
120). Researchers attribute both the large number of breeding birds at
Laguna Brava and the large number of non-breeding birds at Laguna de
Mulas Muertas to unusual rainfall patterns that year (Bucher et al.
2000, p. 120). In March 2001, chicks were observed at Lagunas de los
Aparejos (Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 279, 283), part of a lagoon system
with Laguna Azul and Laguna Negra (BLI 2008, p. 50). Normally known as
a nesting site for the James' flamingo (Childress 2005, p. 6), this may
now be a nesting site for the Andean flamingo as well (BLI 2008, p.
50).
Andean flamingos overwinter at both high- and low-elevation
wetlands in Argentina. Laguna Guayatayoc is a high-elevation
overwintering site for Andean flamingos (Ducks Unlimited 2007a, pp. 1-
4), where the species has sometimes been reported in relatively large
numbers (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 116; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279).
Laguna de Mar Chiquita is the lowest-elevation wetland frequented by
the Andean flamingo (Bucher et al 1992, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2007, p.
279; Derlindati 2008, pp. 6-7). Long known as an overwintering site,
researchers report that a small group of Andean flamingos (about 100
individuals) may reside there year round (BLI 2008, p. 1; Bucher 1992,
pp. 179, 182), and breeding has recently been reported there (Childress
et al. 2005, p. 6). Laguna de Melincu[eacute] is another low-elevation
overwintering site for Andean flamingos (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279).
Although breeding has not been reported there (Childress et al. 2005,
p. 6), the species engages in nuptial displays vital to reproductive
success in the breeding colonies (Derlindati 2008, p. 9). Researchers
estimated that 17 percent of the world population of Andean flamingos
overwintered at Laguna de Melincu[eacute] in winter 2005 and 2006
(Romano et al 2006, p. 17).
Bolivia: There are at least 10 flamingo nesting sites in Bolivia
(Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13). Laguna Colorada is a high-altitude
wetland where Andean flamingos remain year-round and where they have
recently nested with greater frequency (see Factor B) (BLI 2008, p. 1;
Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Davison 2007,
p. 1; Ducks Unlimited 2007b, pp. 14; Kahl 1979, p. 100). Laguna Kalina
(also known as Laguna Calina and Laguna Busch) has recently figured
prominently as a nesting location. Chicks were first reported there in
1997 (Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112), and nesting has been reported there,
at small but consistent rates, in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (Childress et al.
2005, p. 6; Childress et al. 2006, p. 5; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7).
Laguna de Pastos Grandes is another lake system that includes Salar
de Pastos Grandes, Laguna Ramaditas, Laguna Hedionda, Laguna
Ca[ntilde]apa, Laguna Cachi, Laguna Khara, Laguna Chulluncani, and
Laguna Khar Khota (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 13). This wetland complex
provides breeding and non-breeding habitat.
Non-breeding year-round wetlands in Bolivia include: Lago Uru Uru
(Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 5-8; Kahl 1975, p. 100; M[oslash]lgaard et
al. 1999; Rocha et al. 2006, p. 18); Salar de Chalviri (Ducks Unlimited
2007b, pp. 17-20; Hurlbert & Keith 1979, p. 331); Lago Poop[oacute], a
known locality since 1921 (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Hellmayr &
Conover 1948, p. 277; Johnson 1967, p. 404); and Salar de Coipasa, a
wintering site of known importance for all three South American
flamingo species since the mid-20th century (Johnson 1967, p. 404;
Ducks Unlimited 2007c, p. 9). These lakes are hydrologically connected
through the Titicaca-Desaguadero-Poop[oacute]-Salar de Coipasa (TDPS)
basin, a large endoreic (closed) basin shared between Peru, Bolivia,
and Chile (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11). Several Andean flamingo
wetlands are connected to this hydrological basin through rivers,
including: Lago Poop[oacute] (Bolivia), which is connected to Lago
Titicaca (Peru) through R[iacute]o Desaguadero; Salar de Coipasa
(Bolivia), which is connected to Lago Poop[oacute] through R[iacute]o
Laca Jahuira River (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11); and Lago Uru Uru,
which is fed by R[iacute]o Desaguadero (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 5).
In 2000, more than 50 percent of the known population of Andean
flamingos overwintered at Lagos Uru Uru and Poop[oacute] (Caziani et
al. 2007, p. 279).
Chile: There are at least a dozen Andean flamingo breeding sites in
Chile (Childress et al. 2006, p. 7). Salar de Atacama, where the Andean
flamingo type specimen was obtained in 1854 (Hellmayr 1932, p. 312;
Philippi 1860, p. 164), has been a consistent and primary breeding
ground (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7; Ducks
Unlimited 2007c, pp. 1-4; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296). Several other
sites have figured consistently and prominently over the years,
including Salar de Surire, Salar de Huasco, and Salar de Ascot[aacute]n
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296;
Kahl 1975 p. 100). Andean flamingos were first observed at Salar de
Surire in the early 1970s (McFarlane 1975, p. 88). The first report of
breeding (observation of chicks) there occurred in 1997 (Valqui et al.
2000, p. 112), and breeding has continued there at increasing numbers
(Caziani et al. 2007, p. 283). Laguna Ascot[aacute]n differs from most
other Andean flamingo wetlands, as it is fed by 13 fresh-water springs
as well as several brackish lagoons (Vilina and Mart[iacute]nez 1998,
p. 28). Salar de Coposa has long served as breeding and overwintering
habitat for the Andean flamingo (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Johnson
1958, p. 297; Kahl 1975 p. 100).
Salar de Atacama, Salar de Coposa, Salar de Huasco, Salar de Negro
Francisco, and Salar de Surire also provide year-round habitat for the
Andean flamingo (Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al. 2007, p.
279; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, pp. 5-8; Johnson 1958, p. 296). In 1998 and
2000, between 3,500 and 4,500 birds overwintered at these sites
(Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279).
Peru: Andean flamingos frequent several wetlands in Peru (BLI 2008,
pp. 5, 72, 74-75, 78; Ducks Unlimited 2007d, pp. 21, 25, 29; Jameison
and Bingham 1912, p. 14; Ricalde 2003, p. 91). Although BirdLife
International reports breeding sites in Peru (2008, p. 2), the Flamingo
Specialist Group reported no known nesting sites or evidence of
breeding at Peruvian wetlands in 2005, 2006, or 2007 (M. Vlaui Munn, in
litt., as cited in
[[Page 79232]]
Childress et al. 2005, p. 6; Arengo in litt., as cited in Childress et
al. 2006, p. 6; Arengo in litt., as cited in Childress et al. 2007a, p.
7). The species frequently overwinters at Laguna Salinas, Laguna de
Loriscota, and Lago Parinacochas, among other locations (Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279; Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 21, 25, 29-30; Jameison and
Bingham 1912, p. 14). It is estimated that nearly 20 percent of the
global population overwinters in Peru (Ricalde 2003, p. 91).
Recent Trends in Distribution: In 1997, 50 percent of the breeding
population was distributed among three sites in Chile (Salar de Surire,
Laguna Maricunga, and Laguna Negro Francisco) and two sites in
Argentina (Pozuelos, and Vilama) (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279). In the
summer of 2005, 50 percent of the breeding population was located in 5
separate wetlands-Negro Francisco (Chile), Salar de Surire (Chile),
Lagunas de Vilama (Argentina), Laguna Colorada (Bolivia) and Salar de
Atacama (Chile) (Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13).
Population Estimates
Between 1965 and 1968, Charles Cordier's estimate of the Andean
flamingo population varied by an order of magnitude, from 50,000 to
500,000 (as cited in Johnson 1967, p. 404; as cited in Kahl 1975, p.
100). In 1975, Kahl (1975, p. 100) estimated the total population to be
150,000 individuals. This estimate was based on (1) previous estimates;
(2) the fact that the largest number of individuals Kahl had seen in
one place (Lago Uru Uru, Bolivia) was 18,000 individuals; and (3) that,
at most sites, he observed the Andean flamingo to be less numerous than
the Chilean flamingo and James' flamingo. In 1986, the population was
estimated to be less than 50,000 individuals and declining (Johnson
2000, p. 203). However, the accuracy of earlier population estimates
has never been confirmed. According to Arengo (in litt. 2007, p. 2),
member of the Altoandino Flamingo Conservation Group (Grupo de
Conservaci[oacute]n Flamencos Altoandinos), previous historical
population estimates were based on extrapolations of data that are not
considered to be reliable. Experts consider the figure of between
50,000 to 100,000 individuals may have been accurate until the mid-
1980s (BLI 2008, p. 1). Although the figure of 150,000 (e.g.,
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86) was still being reported in the
1990s, an estimate of 50,000 is considered a more accurate figure
(Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2; BLI 2008 p. 1; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p.
526), and experts believe that the species underwent a severe reduction
from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s (BLI 2008, pp. 1, 5).
The first simultaneous census of Andean flamingos was conducted in
1997 (Valqui et al. 2000, p. 110). Using a comprehensive sampling
design and conducting simultaneous surveys at over 200 wetlands in
Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, researchers counted 33,918 Andean
flamingos in January 1997; 27,913 in January 1998; 14,722 in June 1998;
and, 24,442 in July 2000 (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279). In the summer
of 2005, a total of 31,617 Andean flamingos were counted (Caziani et
al. 2006, p. 13). Recent censuses estimate the global population at
around 34,000 individuals (Caziani et al. 2006, pp. 276-287; Caziani et
al. 2007, pp. 13-17).
According to Arengo (in litt. 2007, p. 2), long-term population
trends have been difficult to establish, given the unreliability of
previous population estimates. However, given that the global
population sizes of all other flamingo species are estimated above
100,000 individuals, experts consider the Andean flamingo to be the
rarest of the 6 flamingo species (Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2).
Nesting sites: In the last decade, small groups of Andean flamingos
have been reported intermittently nesting at a greater variety of
sites, including: Laguna Brava and Lagunas de Vilama (Argentina)
(Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Derlindati
2008, pp. 6-7); Laguna Colorada and Laguna Kalina (Bolivia) (Caziani et
al. 2007, p. 279; Childress et al. 2005, p. 6; Childress et al. 2006,
p. 5; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7; Rodriguez Ramirez 2006, as cited in
Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2); and Salar de Punta Negra and Salar de
Huasco (Chile) (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2007, p.
279; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112). In recent years, Andean flamingos
have been recorded from 25 wetlands complexes, but there were fewer
than 100 individuals at many of these sites (Caziani et al. 2007, p.
281). Only 12 wetlands contained more than 100 Andean flamingos at any
one of the four sampling periods from 1997 to 2000, and breeding has
been consistently reported at only 2 of these sites (Arengo in litt.
2007, pp. 2-3; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2007, pp.
279-281; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112).
Breeding success: Productivity estimates from intensive studies of
breeding sites in Chile indicate marked fluctuations over the past 20
years, with periods of very low breeding success (Arengo in litt. 2007,
p. 2). In 1987, a high of around 15,000 chicks fledged, followed by 10
years of relatively low productivity (fewer than 800 chicks fledged per
year on average), and a recent increase to an average of 3,000 chicks
fledged since 2000 (Rodriguez Ramirez 2006, Amado et al. 2007, as cited
in Arengo in litt. 2007, pp. 1-3). Between 1997 and 2001, successful
breeding (based on the observation of 2-3-month-old chicks) was
documented only at three wetlands and, in those wetlands, a total of
only 12,801 chicks were produced--Salar de Surire (Chile; 9,200
chicks), Salar de Atacama (Chile; 3,378 chicks), and Aparejos
(Argentina; 223 chicks) (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 283).
The most recent simultaneous census data indicates that a total of
2,338 chicks survived at breeding colonies located in Argentina,
Bolivia, and Chile during the 2006-2007 breeding season (December to
February) (Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7). In Argentina, eight sites
were surveyed, six of which are known Andean flamingo breeding sites.
Of these, breeding was attempted at one site, but was unsuccessful. No
breeding was reported in Peru during the 2006-2007 breeding season. Of
4 sites surveyed in Bolivia, 3 of which are known Andean flamingo
nesting grounds, breeding occurred at two sites (Laguna Colorada and
Kalina) producing total of 1,800 chicks. In Chile, breeding was
attempted at four sites in Salar de Atacama. A total of 2,900 pairs of
Andean flamingos laid eggs but only 538 chicks survived.
Conservation Status
The Andean flamingo is the rarest of six flamingo species worldwide
(family Phoenicopteridae). The IUCN considers the Andean flamingo to be
``Vulnerable'' because (1) it has undergone a rapid population decline,
(2) it is exposed to ongoing exploitation and declines in habitat
quality, (3) and, although exploitation may decrease, the longevity and
slow breeding of flamingos suggest that the legacy of past threats may
persist through generations to come (BLI 2008, p. 1). Long-lived
species with slow rates of reproduction and ongoing poor breeding
success, such as that being experienced by the Andean flamingo, can
quickly decline towards extinction when reproduction does not keep pace
with mortality (BLI 2008, p. 2; Bucher 1992, p. 183; del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 517) (see Population Estimates, above).
[[Page 79233]]
Summary of Factors Affecting the Andean Flamingo
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
Andean flamingos occupy shallow, saline wetlands in the lowland,
puna, and altoandino regions of the Andes (see Table 1) (BLI 2008, pp.
1, 6; Bucher 1992, p. 192; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992,
pp. 514; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). Andean flamingos are
altitudinal migrants and alternate between wetlands based largely on
environmental conditions and especially the availability of water
(Bucher 1992, p. 182; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, pp.
514; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Goldfeder and Blanco 2007,
p. 190; Hurlbert and Keith 1979, pp. 334, 336; Rocha and Rodriguez
2006, p. 12). During the summer breeding season (December to January),
Andean flamingos occupy high-elevation wetlands in Chile, Argentina,
and Bolivia. During the winter, they may stay at the high-elevation
wetlands, or move to lower elevations in Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru
(Blake 1977, p. 207; BLI 2008, pp. 1 and 6; Boyle et al. 2004, pp. 563-
564, 570-571; Bucher 1992, p. 182; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani
et al. 2006. p. 17; Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 277, 279, 281; del Hoyo
1992, p. 514, 519; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and
Keith 1979, pp. 330; Kahl 1975, pp. 99-101; Mascitti and Bonaventura
2002, p. 360; Mascitti and Casta[ntilde]era 2006, p. 328).
The wetlands occupied by Andean flamingos are utilized on a
landscape level (Derlandati 2008, p. 10). Andean flamingos prefer water
that is less than 3 ft (1m) deep (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86;
Mascitti and Caste[ntilde]era 2006, p. 331) and rely on the variety of
habitat options at wetland complexes throughout the species' range to
select optimal nesting and feeding sites. Beginning in 2002,
researchers conducted a multi-year Andean flamingo dispersal study, to
determine overwintering sites and spatial and temporal movements
(Caziani et al. 2003, p. 11; Johnson and Arengo 2004, pp. 9, 15).
Andean flamingos in Argentina were tracked using satellite
transmitters, and results were highly variable. One bird stayed at the
origination site (the actual location of which was undisclosed) another
bird traveled 715 mi (1,150 km) over a 4-day period, using more than
four sites in the process (Caziani et al. 2003, p. 11). The habitats
visited included salar lakes, rivers and flooded areas. Flamingos were
more mobile during summer to autumn (January-May), moving between sites
often, and less mobile in winter. The birds in this study overwintered
at Laguna de Mar Chiquita (Argentina), Lago Poop[oacute] (Bolivia), and
Salar de Atacama (Chile) (Caziani et al. 2003, p. 11).
Between 1997 and 2001, 98 percent of Andean flamingo chicks were
produced in two Chilean wetlands--Surire (9,200 chicks) and Atacama
(3,378 chicks) (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 283). In the 2006-2007 breeding
season, 75 percent of the surviving chicks were produced at Laguna
Kalina and Laguna Colorada (1,800 chicks) (Bolivia), and the other 25
percent at Salar de Atacama (538 chicks) (Chile). Sites where breeding
does not occur serve as important staging areas for pre-reproduction
mating displays and as feeding locations for non-breeding flamingos and
even breeding flamingos at nearby sites (Derlandati 2008, p. 10).
Andean flamingos travel to different wetlands to feed, even while
nesting (Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 277; Conway 2000,
p. 212; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 509-519).
The Andean region where the Andean flamingo occurs is characterized
by an extensive series of endoreic (closed) water systems that drain
internally, that are recharged primarily by summer rains, that contract
seasonally, and that may occasionally dry out completely (see Factor E)
(Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani and Derlindati 2000, pp. 124-125; Caziani
et al. 2001, p. 110; Mascitti and Caziani 1997, p. 328).
Mineral extraction, water contamination, water extraction, and
water diversion from mining, agriculture, urban development, and
increasing tourism are ongoing activities that negatively impact
wetland habitats that support Andean flamingos throughout the species'
range (Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 5;
Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 193).
Mineral extraction: There are ongoing mining operations to extract
salt, borax, ulexite, sulphur, sodium carbonate, lithium, and several
other minerals at many of the wetlands occupied by the Andean flamingo.
Mineral extraction and prospecting are ongoing at these wetlands,
including: Salars de Atacama and Surire (Chile) (Corporaci[oacute]n
Nacional Forestal 1996a, p. 9; Rundel and Palma 2000, pp. 270-271)--the
two breeding sites that accounted for 98 percent of the chick
production during the period 1997-2001 (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 283)--
and Lago Uru Uru (Bolivia) (Soto 1996, p. 7; Ugarte-Nunez and
Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 135)--the site that had the largest
number of Andean flamingos ever recorded in one wetland (Kahl 1975, p.
100). Prospecting and digging for minerals and underground water--
involving road building which makes it possible for people to reach
places that were formerly inaccessible--are ongoing at Laguna Negra
(Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996c, pp. 10-11).
Argentinean wetlands--including Laguna Brava, Laguna Pozuelos, and
Lagunas de Vilama, where Andean flamingos breed and live year-round--
are also under mining pressure (BLI 2008, p. 553; Caziani et al. 2001,
p. 106; de la Fuente 2002, p. 8; Ducks Unlimited 2007a, p. 4; Goldfeder
and Blanco 2007, p. 193).
In Bolivia, there are proposals to exploit lithium, potassium, and
borium from Salar de Coipasa (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 11) and Pastos
Grande (New World Resource Corp 2008, p. 1)--both known breeding and
overwintering sites for the Andean flamingo. Bolivia contains an
estimated 50 percent of the world's supply of the lithium that is used
to make batteries for portable electronic equipment. The largest known
lithium deposit in the world is located in the Bolivian altiplano--the
Pastos Grandes concession (New World Resource Corp 2008, p. 2). Lithium
can be extracted directly from the saline water in the alitplano
salars; this water is referred to by the mining industry as ``brine.''
The brine is pumped through a series of evaporation ponds to
concentrate the lithium (New World Resource Corp 2008, p. 4). Obtaining
lithium from brine is considered more cost-effective in the mining
industry than the other alternative, extracting lithium from hard rock
(New World Resource Corp 2008, p. 4). Nearly all the world's supply of
brine-derived lithium comes from the Chilean and Argentinean altiplanos
(New World Resource Corp 2008, p. 4).
Intensive exploitation of natural resources has degraded the soil
and ecology of the region, resulting in extensive erosion, river
sedimentation, soil salinization, silting up of lakes, and water
imbalances in watersheds that contribute to extreme fluctuations in
water flows (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 14). In the past, Andean
flamingos have abandoned breeding sites undergoing alteration from
mining. Laguna Ascot[aacute]n was once considered a breeding site for
the species (Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296; Kahl 1975 p. 100). The birds
abandoned the site in the mid-20th century, which Johnson (1958, p.
296) attributed to the resumption of borax extraction. Today, Andean
flamingos continue to feed at the site (Vilina and Mart[iacute]nez
1998, p. 28) but there are no reports of nesting.
[[Page 79234]]
Water Contamination: Water resources at many salars have been
contaminated, largely as the result of chemical pollution produced by
the mining and metallurgical industries. The waters of the Titicaca-
Desaguadero-Poop[oacute]-Salar de Coipasa (TDPS) hydrological system
have been polluted by mining and metal foundry activities (Jellison et
al. 2004, p. 11; Ricalde 2003, p. 91). This water system includes the
important Bolivian overwintering sites, Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru
Uru--where more than 50 percent of the known population of Andean
flamingos overwintered in 2000 (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279). The area
has been mined for silver, lead, zinc, copper limestone, antimony,
iron, gold, tin, and uranium (Rocha 2002, p. 10). Lago Poop[oacute],
Lago Uru Uru, and the lower R[iacute]o Desaguadero have concentrations
of heavy metals above the limits permitted for human consumption (Apaza
et al. 1996, Organization of American States/United Nations Environment
Programme (OAS/UNEP) and the Bi-national Authority of Lago Titicaca
(Autoridad Nacional del Lago Titicaca (ALT)) 1999, Van Ryckeghem 1997--
as cited in Rocha 2002, p. 10). Because Lago Poop[oacute] is located at
the terminal end of the endoreic (closed) TDPS drainage system,
pollutants are more likely to concentrate there (Jellison et al. 2004,
p. 120; Ronteltap et al. 2005, p. 3) and the lake has been contaminated
by mining activities for a long time (Adamek et al. 1998). Mine
pollution has led to lake water lead concentrations that are 300 times
higher in Lago Poop[oacute] than the average concentrations detected in
other lakes in the world and fish in the lake test positive for heavy
metal residues (Cardoza et al. 2004, as cited in Jellison et al. 2004,
p. 120). Water contamination in Lago Poop[oacute] was further
exacerbated in year 2000, when 39,000 barrels of crude oil spilled in
the lake. The native community Uru Morato, which has lived along the
lake for 5,000 years, reported that the flamingoes did not lay eggs
there that year ``for the first time in thousands of years'' (Jellison
et al. 2004, p. 13).
Tourism and increasing human population to support the mining
industry has destroyed habitat and further contaminated water supplies.
Ecotourism is prevalent at many wetlands inhabited by the Andean
flamingo, most of which are exceptional sites for viewing biodiversity
and wildlife, including Argentina--at Laguna de Mar Chiquita (Ducks
Unlimited 2007a, p. 22); Laguna Brava, where tourism includes the use
off-road vehicles (BLI 2008, p. 40); and Lagunas de Vilama (Caziani et
al. 2001, p. 106). Increasing amounts of pollution from surrounding
towns that support ecotourism and the mining industry wash into
wetlands during the rainy season and are carried into the lake by wind.
Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000 (p. 139) noted an absence of
flamingos in areas where refuse enters the Laguna Salinas (Peru).
Inadequate sewage systems at growing urban centers pollute the salars
(Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11). Pollution of the water in the TDPS
system is problematic where towns are concentrated on the shores of the
lakes (Ronteltap et al. 2005, p. 5). As of 2004, the TDPS water system,
of which Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru are a part, supported a
population of nearly 3 million people (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 14). At
Lago Titicaca, wastewater is causing eutrophication--whereby excessive
nutrients stimulate excessive plant growth, reducing the dissolved
oxygen in the water as the plants decompose, causing other organisms to
die--over approximately 3,954 acres (ac) (1,600 hectares (ha)) in the
Puno Bay, and in another portion of the lake, leakage from former oil
wells continues to degrade wildlife habitat (IRENA 1996, p. 9). Sewage
from the city of Oruro and the neighboring towns of Challapata, Huari,
and Poop[oacute] empties into Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru, causing
organic and bacteriological pollution (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 7;
Liberman et al. 1991, OAS/UNEP and ALT 1999--as cited in Rocha 2002, p.
10).
In addition, illegal dumping of agrochemicals has severely impacted
wetlands and the species that depend on them. In 2000, at Mar Chiquita
(Argentina), Bucher reported that 30 tons of Lindane, an insecticide,
was illegally dumped at the northern end of the lake, jeopardizing the
entire closed lake system (Johnson and Arengo 2001, p. 38). Industrial
pollutants and pesticides have caused large-scale die-off of flamingos.
Childress et al. (2007b, p. 30) reported that tens of thousands of
lesser flamingos (Phoenicopterus minor) were killed in July 2004 by
industrial heavy metals and pesticides at feeding lakes in Kenya and
Tanzania. A massive bird die-off of unspecified species of birds at
Miramar in February 2004 (located in C[oacute]rdoba, where Laguna de
Mar Chiquita is located) may have been caused by the dumping of excess
agrochemicals into the water, which penetrated the soil (BLI 2008, pp.
36-37).
Given that pollutants and pesticides have been known to cause die-
offs of other species of flamingos and other bird species, it is likely
that such contamination could have lethal effects on Andean flamingos.
For instance, although in 1997 Laguna de Pozuelos was among 5 wetlands
that harbored 50 percent of the breeding population of Andean
flamingos, the number of Andean flamingos on Laguna de Pozuelos has
diminished greatly since 1993 (Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p. 122).
Pollution from mining wastes and erosion due to overgrazing, combined
with desiccation of the lake (see Factor E), is negatively affecting
the wetland at Laguna de Pozuelos (Argentina), where Andean flamingos
breed and reside year-round (Laredo 1990, as cited in Adminstration de
Parques Nacionales 1994, p. 2). In the 2006-2007 breeding season, no
breeding was detected at this lake (Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7).
Water Extraction and Diversion: Water is extracted from wetlands
for use by the mining industry, to facilitate lakebed resource
exploitation, and to meet increasing human demand. Mining companies
hold water concessions at Laguna Negra (Chile) (Corporaci[oacute]n
Nacional Forestal 1996c, pp. 10-11). Water extraction is an intrinsic
part of lithium mining in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile (New World
Resource Corp 2008, p. 4) (see Mineral Extraction). Underground water
has been pumped from Salar de Punta Negra (Chile) for use in a large
copper mining operation (Line 2004, p. 4). In the past decade, Andean
flamingos have bred intermittently at Salar de Punta Negra (Caziani et
al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279, 283; Johnson et al. 1958,
p. 296; Kahl 1975 p. 100). The shallow wetlands preferred by Andean
flamingos are subject to high rates of evapotranspiration (Caziani and
Derlindati 2000, p. 122), and water extraction hastens desiccation of
these wetlands. In these arid closed-basin systems, groundwater
extraction is unsustainable (Messerli et al. 1997, p. 233; Research and
Resources for Sustainable Development (Recursos e Investigaci[oacute]n
para el Desarrollo Sustentable (RIDES)) 2005, p. 14).
Wetlands have been drained to facilitate excavation on the lakebed
surface (Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 135).
Excavation can drastically alter the water levels of these shallow
lakes, creating areas that are unsuitable for foraging and nesting and
allowing human access to areas that were once inaccessible
(Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996c, p. 11). Furthermore, there
have been reports of flamingos dying when they became stuck in the mud
brought up from the bottom of the lake by mining operations (Ugarte-
Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 137).
[[Page 79235]]
Urbanization and tourism have intensified groundwater use (Jellison
et al. 2004, p. 11), as hotels and restaurants have been established in
the villages and towns surrounding the salars and lagunas (RIDES 2005,
p. 21). An influx of tourists at Laguna Colorada (Bolivia) has resulted
in noticeable increased water consumption (Rocha and Eyzaguirre 1998,
p. 8). At Salar de Atacama, the maximum volume available for extraction
from the basin is estimated by the average annual recharge rate of 177
cubic feet per second (ft\3\/s) (5 cubic meters per second (m\3\/s)),
yet the rights to 219 ft\3\/s (6.2 m\3\/s) of water have been allocated
(RIDES 2005, pp. 15-16). The number of people visiting remote Salar de
Surire (Chile), a primary Andean flamingo breeding site, was under
1,000 as of 1995, and is increasing (Soto and Silvestre 1996, p. 7).
Recent estimates indicate that over 50,000 people visit Salar de
Atacama (Chile) and surrounding areas each year. Based on the recharge
estimates, continued increases in water use levels commensurate with
increasing tourism would not be sustainable (RIDES 2005, p. 21).
The gradual loss of water from the basin reduces the surface area
of the lake and the total amount of habitat available to the Andean
flamingo. Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray (2000, p. 135) found
that the number of flamingos at Laguna Salinas (Peru) was strongly
correlated to the proportion of the lake covered with water (1997:
r2=0.73; 1998: r2=0.72), indicating that loss of
surface area influences flamingo abundance. Lago Parinacochas (Peru),
long known as an important overwintering site for Andean flamingos, is
being drained as part of a water development project in Peru (Ducks
Unlimited 2007d, p. 31). The TDPS in Bolivia and Peru, which Lagos
Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru belong to, provides drinking water and
cleaning water, transportation, industry and irrigation-in addition to
providing habitat for flora and fauna (Ronteltap et al. 2005, p. 5).
The extraction of water for human consumption has exacerbated
ongoing drought conditions throughout Andean flamingo habitat since the
early 1990s (see Factor E) (Caziani and Derlindati 2000, pp. 124-125;
Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110; Mascitti and Caziani 1997, p. 328). In
Chile, where Andean flamingo breeding colonies are found and where
mineral and hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation have increased in
the last two decades, both the number of successful breeding colonies
and the total production of chicks of Andean flamingos have declined
since the 1980s (Parada 1992, Rodr[iacute]guez and Contreras 1998--as
cited in Caziani et al. 2007, p. 284). Of 2,900 pairs of Andean
flamingos that attempted to breed in Chilean wetlands in the 2006-2007
season, only 538 chicks were produced (Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7).
Water from salars has been diverted to support agriculture. Rio
Lauca, which feeds Salar de Coipasa (Bolivia), has been diverted near
its source in Chile for irrigation purposes (Ducks Unlimited 2007c, pp.
9-11). This has resulted in a considerable reduction in the flow of
water into Salar de Coipasa and is contributing to the desiccation of
the Salar (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 11).
Rio Desaguadero is a 230 mi-long (370 km) river that once flowed
from Lago Titicaca to Lago Poop[oacute] but recently changed direction
and now flows into Lago Uru Uru (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 5). This is
attributed to water level reductions caused by an ongoing drought since
the early 1990s (see Factor E) and by diversion for irrigation
(Jellison et al. 2004, p. 14). In 2004, Rio Mauri, a major tributary of
the Rio Desaguadero was diverted to Peru (Armando et al. 2004, as cited
in Jellison et al. 2004, p. 14). These water shortages exacerbate the
contamination and extraction problems for Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru
Uru, mentioned above.
Research has shown that drastic water level changes can
significantly alter the seasonal altitudinal movements of the Andean
flamingo (Mascitti and Caziani 1997, pp. 324-326). In January 1996,
Caziani & Derlindati (2000, p. 124) reported that a colony of
unidentified flamingo nests at Lagunas Vilama, where Andean and James'
flamingo are known to breed, were found on dry land--probably due to an
unexpected retraction of the lake--leaving 1,500 abandoned nests, some
of which had eggs from that season.
Increased urbanization and mining have increased infrastructure
development. At Lagunas Brava and Mulas Muertas (breeding and
overwintering sites, respectively), in Argentina, an international road
to connect Argentina with Chile has been under construction. This road
passes near the shores of Lagunas Brava and Mulas Muertas and through
the bofedales that feed the two lakes, decreasing the available area
suitable for Andean flamingo nesting and foraging and disrupting
hydrological recharge system by altering the wet meadows that feed the
two lakes (de la Fuente 2002, p. 8). At Laguna Salinas (Peru), which
provides habitat for all three Andean flamingo species (Ducks Unlimited
2007d, p. 26), a mining road bisects the lake and construction
excavations have reduced flamingo habitat availability (Ugarte-Nunez
and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, pp. 137-138). Increased road
construction to support mining and tourism also facilitates predator
access to nesting grounds (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996a,
pp. 12) (Factor C).
Agriculture and Grazing: Lowland wetlands that serve as important
overwintering sites for the Andean flamingo are subject to agricultural
pressures (Derlindati 2008, pp. 1, 7). Laguna Melincu[eacute]
(Argentina), for instance, lies in the heart of Argentina's
agricultural zone (Romano et al. 2006, p. 17). The forested lands are
being cleared and pastures have been and continue to be planted with
cash crops in the areas surrounding Mar Chiquita (Argentina) (BLI 2008,
p. 36).
Cattle grazing occurs adjacent to Andean flamingo habitat in
Argentina, where the species breeds and overwinters, including Laguna
Brava (de la Fuente 2002, p. 8) and Laguna Pozuelos (Adminstration de
Parques Nacionales 1994, p. 1). At Laguna Brava, ranching activities
are considered small-scale (comprising 300 heads of cattle), in part,
because the area surrounding the lake is uninhabited (de la Fuente
2002, p. 8). At Laguna Pozeulos, grazing has resulted in severe soil
erosion, especially along the shore and increased siltation of the lake
(Adminstraci[oacute]n de Parques Nacionales 1994, p. 1; Ducks Unlimited
2007a, p. 4). In Bolivia, livestock management (llamas and alpacas)
continues to be a problem in the bofedales surrounding Laguna Colorada
(Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 14; Flores 2004, pp. 25-26).
These activities have contributed to the alteration and degradation
of vital Andean flamingo habitat. Long-lived species with slow rates of
reproduction, such as the Andean flamingo, can appear to have robust
populations, but can quickly decline towards extinction if reproduction
does not keep pace with mortality (BLI 2008, p. 2; Bucher 1992, p. 183;
del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 517). Andean flamingos have temporally
sporadic and spatially concentrated breeding patterns, and their
breeding success and recruitment are low (Caziani et al. 2007;
Childress et al. 2005, p. 7; Childress et al. 2006, p. 7; Childress et
al. 2007a, p. 7). Successful reproduction is spatially concentrated in
just a few wetlands (Childress et al. 2005, p. 7; Childress et al.
2006, p. 7; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112).
In the case of Andean flamingos, Conway (W. Conway, as cited in Valqui
et al. 2000, p. 112) suggests that a stable population can be
[[Page 79236]]
maintained if the species' breeding success is good every 5-10 years.
Recent productivity estimates indicate that the species has experienced
very low breeding success over prolonged periods (Arengo in litt. 2007,
p. 2; Amado et al. 2007, Rodriguez Ramirez 2006--as cited in Arengo in
litt. 2007, pp. 1-3). An examination of the species' nesting sites and
breeding success (see Population Estimates, above) indicates that,
despite an increased number of nesting sites, the species' breeding
success remains low (Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2; Caziani et al. 2007;
Childress et al. 2005, p. 7; Childress et al. 2006, p. 7; Childress et
al. 2007a, p. 7). Valqui et al. 2000 (pp. 111-112) postulated that
reproduction in the Andean flamingo, a species which prefers to nest at
high densities and once nested in huge colonies at Salar de Atacama
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296;
Kahl 1975 p. 100), is being inhibited by the more dispersed nature of
the population and occupation of smaller lakes.
Summary of Factor A
Salar habitat throughout the Andean flamingo's range has been and
continues to be altered as a result of natural resource exploitation.
Andean flamingos require a variety of available habitats over large
areas in order to find optimal foraging and nesting sites, given
unpredictable seasonal fluctuations. Mining has resulted in direct loss
of habitat due to excavations of lakebeds, has increased water
extraction, and has caused water pollution. Wetlands throughout Andean
flamingo habitat have been drastically altered by water extraction for
mining, agriculture, and human consumption. Flamingos are sensitive to
fluctuating water levels, and intentional diversion of water from these
endoreic (closed) wetlands exacerbates natural seasonal fluctuations
and reduces habitat options. Wetlands are contaminated from mining
spoils, sewage and agriculture pollution. Wetland complexes occupied by
Andean flamingos that are hydrologically connected become affected by
pollutants and by diminished water levels on a landscape level.
Resource extraction and water contamination have had and continue to
have significant impacts on the water quality and the availability of
wetlands that are critical to the lifecycle of the Andean flamingo.
Andean flamingo breeding patterns are temporally sporadic, successful
reproduction is spatially concentrated, and their breeding success and
recruitment are low. Continued and pervasive habitat destruction
throughout the species' range in recent decades coincides with the
species' drastic population reduction, as noted by experts (See
Population Estimates, above). The negative impacts of habitat
destruction on Andean flamingos on the reduction of the species' range
and population numbers are intensified by an ongoing drought (Factor
E). Lowered water levels could lead to disease outbreaks and can
increase the flamingo's susceptibility to predation (Factor C).
Therefore, we find that destruction and modification of habitat are
threats to the continued existence of the Andean flamingo throughout
its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Hunting for local consumption: Andean flamingos are hunted
throughout their range for use as food or medicine and in rituals.
Johnson (1967, p. 405) described flamingo hunting activities by the
Montaro Indians at Lago Poop[oacute] (Bolivia) and by the Chipayas at
Laguna Coipasa (Bolivia), who hunted the species for food and for its
feathers, which were sold as dance ornaments). In the late summer, the
Chipayas also rounded up groups of young flamingos and slaughtered them
for their fat, which was boiled down and sold as a remedy for
tuberculosis (Johnson 1967, p. 405).
Flamingo hunting continues today throughout the species' range
(Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112). Quantities of wild birds, including
flamingos, are still sold in the markets in Argentina, Bolivia, and
Chile (Barbar[aacute]n 2004, p. 6; S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 103). In 2006,
birds sold for between 25-50 Bolivianos (Bs) ($3-6 U.S. Dollars (US$))
(S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 89).
On the Argentinean (Departments of Salta and Jujuy)/Bolivian border
(Potos[iacute])--where several Andean flamingo wetlands are found,
including Laguna Pozuelos (Argentina), Laguna Colorada, and Salar de
Chalviri (both in Bolivia)--locals use flamingo feathers as medicinal
incense and for costumes; they eat flamingo meat and use the fat for
medicine (Barbar[aacute]n 2004, p. 11). Hunting is also ongoing at
Lagunas de Vilama (Argentina), where the species breeds and overwinters
(BLI 2008, p. 553).
At Salar de Atacama (an Andean flamingo breeding site in Chile),
flamingos are hunted for their feathers (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional
Forestal 1996a, pp. 8-9). Flamingos are used in local rituals
associated with rain, birth, death, and illnesses by indigenous
cultures that have long inhabited the Salar de Atacama region (Castro
and Varela 1992, p. 22).
At Laguna Salinas (an overwintering site in Peru), hunters have
killed flamingos for target practice or just ``to get a close look at
one'' (Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 137). Increased
road construction to support mining and tourism (Factor A) also
facilitates hunting access to nesting grounds (Corporaci[oacute]n
Nacional Forestal 1996a, p. 12). At Lago Titicaca (Peru), localized
hunting may occur (Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 27). Excessive hunting is
also a problem at Lago Parinacochas (an overwintering site in Peru)
(Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 23). Hunting pressure on flamingos has been
described as ``intense'' at Negro Francisco (Chile) and poaching is a
problem at Mar Chiquita (Argentina); both are Andean flamingo breeding
grounds (Bucher 1992, p. 183, Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal
1996c, p. 11; Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 193).
Indiscriminant hunting of Andean flamingos continues at Lago
Poop[oacute] (an Andean flamingo overwintering site in Bolivia) (Rocha
2002, p. 10). Around Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru, flamingos are
still trapped using traditional techniques--a slip-knot rope strung
across the shores of the lake (S[aacute]enz 2006, pp. 88-89). Locals,
such as the Urus, who live near Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru, prefer
Andean flamingos above all other waterfowl, presumably for their fat
content (S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 185). Flamingo blood might be used
medicinally and feathers for adornment (S[aacute]enz 2006, pp. 88-89).
Locals at Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru hunt flamingos to sell to
miners, who make oil from the bird to cure tuberculosis (Morrison 1975,
p. 81). One trapper noted that ``long ago'' it was possible to trap up
to 15 flamingos per day at Lago Poop[oacute], but that this was no
longer the case (S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 89).
Direct removal through hunting of Andean flamingo juveniles and
adults has immediate and direct consequences on the already small size
of the Andean flamingo population. The Andean flamingo experienced a
severe population reduction since the 1980s (BLI 2008, pp. 1, 5), with
the number of birds decreasing from 50,000 to 100,000 individuals (BLI
2008, p. 1) to the current estimate of 34,000 (Caziani et al. 2006, pp.
276-287; Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 13-17). Hunting further reduces the
number of individuals. All flamingos are believed to be monogamous,
with a strong pair-bonding tendency that may be maintained from one
breeding season to the next (del Hoyo 1992, p. 514). Hunting can
destroy pair bonds and disrupt mating from one season to the
[[Page 79237]]
next. Because not all sexually mature adults breed every year and, even
in years of breeding, not all sexually mature adults will participate
(Bucher 1992, p. 183), removal of those adults that are nesting greatly
reduced their already poor breeding success (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe
1990, p. 85). Andean flamingos are long-lived, with slow rates of
reproduction and poor breeding success (BLI 2008, p. 2; Bucher 1992, p.
183; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 517). Stable populations can be
maintained only if the species' breeding success is good every 5-10
years (William Conway, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York,
as cited in Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112). Removal of juveniles from the
population contributes to the already low rate of chick production (as
further discussed under Egg Collection, below). Experts believe that
ongoing exploitation, coupled with habitat decline, and the species'
rapid population decline and slow breeding render this species
vulnerable to extinction in the wild (BLI 2008, p. 1). Finally, given
the species' sensitivity to human disturbance (see Factor E), Andean
flamingos are negatively affected by disturbance from hunting-related
activities, even when they are not directly targeted (CONAF, Region II,
as cited in Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA) 1996, p.
11; de la Fuente 2002, p. 8; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112).
Hunting for international trade: In 1975, the Andean flamingo was
listed in Appendix II of CITES (UNEP-WCMC 2008b, p. 1). Appendix II
includes species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction,
but may become so unless trade is subject to strict regulation to avoid
utilization incompatible with the species' survival. International
trade in specimens of Appendix-II species is authorized through permits
or certificates under certain circumstances, including verification
that trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in
the wild and that specimens in trade were legally acquired (UNEP-WCMC
2008a, p. 1). For information on how CITES functions to regulate trade,
see Factor D.
Bucher (1992, p. 183) described a smuggling operation that involved
trade in live Andean flamingos with birds captured at Laguna de Mar
Chiquita (a breeding site in Argentina) and transported out of the
country as captive-bred specimens (specimens that were not taken out of
the wild) forged CITES documents. Based on CITES documentation, trade
records indicate that a total of 77 Andean flamingo specimens have been
traded internationally since the species was listed in 1975 (United
Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(UNEP-WCMC) 2008c, pp. 1-2). Thirty-six specimens were traded as non-
living specimens--all were exchanged for scientific purposes and
involved trade with Chile and Argentina--3 specimens from Chile (in
1985) and 25 specimens from Argentina (in 2004); 1 shipment of 250
grams of specimens from Chile (possibly blood samples, in 1997); 1 body
(probably a museum specimen, in 1989); and 2 feathers (which appear to
be the same specimen--imported to the U.S. from Chile in 2000 and
returned to Chile in 2001) (UNEP-WCMC 2008c, pp. 1-2).
Forty-one of the 77 specimens were live shipments. Eighteen of the
specimens originated from one Andean flamingo range country (Bolivia)
and were exported in three shipments--in 1977, 1978, and 1981. Sixteen
of the birds were traded for scientific purposes; trade for scientific
purposes generally indicates a transaction involving a zoo, where
primary research on captive breeding is undertaken. There is no
indication as to the origin of the remaining 23 live specimens (i.e.,
the country from which the specimens originated), so that we are unable
to determine unequivocally whether live specimens were exported from
Argentina under false CITES documentation. Of these 23, only 3
specimens were traded for commercial purposes: In 1979, when France
exported a single live individual to Great Britain; in 1980, when the
United States exported 4 live individuals to Great Britain; and, in
1982, when Great Britain exported 27 birds to Germany. There has been
no trade in live specimens since 1982 (UNEP-WCMC 2008c, pp. 1-2).
Since 1997, the Andean flamingo has been protected throughout
Europe by the European Commission (EC) Regulation 338/97 (Eur-Lex 2008,
p. 24). For species listed under Annex B, imports from a non-European
Union country must be accompanied by a permit that is only issued if
the Scientific Authority has determined that trade in the species will
not be detrimental to its survival in the wild. According to Dr. Ute
Grimm (German Scientific Authority to CITES (Fauna), Bonn, Germany, in
litt. 2008, p. 1), there have been no imports of Andean flamingos since
this legislation went into effect (Grimm in litt. 2008, p.1). Thus, we
cannot conclude that CITES trade documents were used to smuggle live
birds from Argentina, and the trade data does not suggest that this is
the case.
Egg collection: There is a long history of collecting flamingo eggs
in the altiplano region. Eggs are harvested for subsistence use and for
sale in local markets (Barbar[aacute]n 2004, p. 6; BLI 2008, p. 56;
Rocha 2002, p. 10; S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 89). Walcott (1925, pp. 354-
357) provided a detailed account of egg collecting at Laguna Colorada
(Bolivia), as described by a local Puna Indian. According to this
account, the locals knew when the Andean flamingos began nesting for
the season and a group of 8 to 10 villagers would camp at the lake long
enough to gather the eggs. They gathered nearly every egg, burying the
ones that they could not carry, so that the birds would not incubate
them, and returning later to retrieve the buried eggs. The eggs were
baked in clay ovens on site before being transported back to their
village. Another early 20th century account noted that flamingo eggs
were sold as far back as 1903 in a market at San Pedro de Atacama
(Chile) (Walcott 1925, pp. 354, 360)--this is the nearest town to Salar
de Atacama, the type locality of the Andean flamingo (Hellmayr 1932, p.
312). Eggs were harvested once, twice, or several times a season
(Johnson et al. 1958 pp. 291, 298; Walcott 1925, pp. 354-356). Accounts
describe the annual practice of harvesting eggs, with entire families
journeying to the lake to set up camp from December to February
(Barfield 1961, p. 96; Johnson et al. 1958 pp. 291-292).
Egg collecting has become an established part of the local culture
(Barbar[aacute]n 2004, p. 6; Rocha 2002, p. 10). Egg collecting has
been reported at several wetlands throughout the Andes that are
critical to the Andean flamingo's life cycle, including: Laguna de
Pozuelos (Argentina) (Administration de Parques Nacionales 1994, p. 2);
Lagunas de Vilama (Argentina) (BLI 2008, p. 553; Caziani et al. 2001,
p. 106); Lago Poop[oacute] (Bolivia); Lago Uru Uru (Bolivia)
(S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 89); Laguna Colorada (Bolivia) (Hurlbert and
Keith 1979, p. 332; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 292; Rocha and Eyzaguirre
1998, p. 1); and Salar de Atacama (Chile) (Hurlbert and Keith 1979, pp.
332-333; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 298). Egg collection may also occur at
Lago Titicaca (Peru) (Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 27).
Collecting is facilitated by the fact that the birds nest in large
colonies. Large nesting sites are targeted for egg collection, as
collectors can quickly gather a large number of eggs at these sites
(Caziani et al. 2001, p. 111; S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 89).
[[Page 79238]]
Egg collection has an immediate negative impact on the Andean
flamingo's already poor breeding success (see Population Estimates-
Breeding Success) (Arengo in litt. 2007, pp. 1-3; del Hoyo et al. 1992,
p. 521). Because flamingos are long-lived with slow rates of
reproduction (Bucher 1992, p. 183), stable populations can be
maintained if the species' breeding success is good every 5-10 years
(William Conway, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, as
cited in Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112). However, the numbers of nesting
birds being reported are lower in the past decade when compared to the
1980s (Parada 1992, Rodr[iacute]guez and Contreras 1998--as cited in
Caziani et al. 2007, p. 284). Chick production has been very low for
the past 20 years, averaging 800 per year from 1987 to 1997 (Rodriguez
Ramirez 2006, Amado et al. 2007, as cited in Arengo in litt. 2007, pp.
1-3), and 3,000 chicks per year from between 1997 to 2001 (Caziani et
al. 2007, p. 283). As discussed in Factor E, disturbance caused by
collection activities further compounds the adverse effects of egg
collection (see Factor E).
Increasing demand for eggs and increased access to habitats further
exacerbates the species' already poor breeding success. In 1975,
Morrison (1975, p. 81) reported that flamingo eggs were in great demand
and that traders visited nesting areas, including Lagos Poop[oacute]
and Uru Uru, to buy eggs from local Indians, transporting eggs away
``by the truckload.'' As towns grow and mining operations expand,
demand for eggs increases to satisfy the miners (del Hoyo et al. 1992,
p. 521). Mining operations have infiltrated once isolated wetlands. In
1925, birds nesting at Laguna Cachi (part of Pastos Grandes, Bolivia)
were considered secure from egg collecting due to the remote and
inhospitable terrain (Walcott 1925, pp. 354-356). Today, Pastos
Grandes, which is an important breeding ground in Bolivia, is the site
of intense mineral prospecting (see Factor A).
Tourism and Ecotourism: As described in Factor A, ecotourism is
prevalent at many wetlands inhabited by the Andean flamingo, including:
Laguna Negra (Argentina), Laguna de Colorada (Bolivia), Salar de
Atacama, and the TDPS wetland complex, which includes Lagos
Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru (the latter three wetlands in Chile).
According to the Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal (1996c, pp. 10-
11), uncontrolled tourism, especially the use of four wheeled all-
terrain vehicles, has become a problem at Laguna Negra.
The Eduardo Avaroa National Reserve (Reserve) in Bolivia
encompasses Laguna Colorada, Laguna Kalina, and Salar de Chalviri
(Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 43). The Reserve began collecting tourism
data in 1999 (Gonz[aacute]lez 2006, p. 1). Since 2000, tourism has
increased annually by about 5 percent per year, from 26,066 visitors in
2000 to 51,271 visitors in 2005 (Gonz[aacute]lez 2006, p. 2). Over the
6-year period, a total of 142,968 tourists visited the Reserve,
primarily in the Bolivian winter months of July (24,629 visitors) and
August (32,230 visitors). During the Andean flamingo breeding season
(November to February), an average of 18,000 people visited the Reserve
each month (Gonzalez 2006, p. 2). In 2005, ticket sales indicated that
65 percent of the tourists came to see the flamingos (Gonz[aacute]lez
2006, p. 2). Within the Reserve, problems associated with tourism
include increased car traffic and trash, especially disposable bottles
and other non-biodegradable waste (Embassy of Bolivia 2008, pp. 7-8).
At Lago Titicaca (Peru), the large number of visitors and the noise
of motorized vehicles has decreased the number of birds on the lake
(INRENA 1996, p. 6). At Laguna Salinas (Peru), which provides habitat
to all three South American flamingo species, excavation activities
near the lake had a profound effect on the flamingos. Flamingos were
driven away from areas where there was noise caused by excavating
machinery, disrupting feeding and breeding activities. Flamingos fled
nesting sites during disturbance activities (such as excavation), and
some never returned, abandoning their nests (Ugarte-Nunez and
Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 137).
Summary of Factor B
Hunting for local consumption, egg collection, and tourism have a
negative impact on Andean flamingo populations throughout their range.
Hunting removes juveniles and adults from the population, which has
already experienced a severe population decline within the past 30
years and is considered the rarest of all flamingo species in the
world. Removal of adults from the population decreases the number of
sexually mature specimens available for reproduction, may break pair
bonds, and jeopardizes their already inconsistent breeding habits.
Although egg-collecting has been carried out for years, and perhaps
centuries, increased demand has intensified collection pressures. Egg
collection is facilitated by the flamingo's colonial nesting practices
and from increased access to once-remote wetlands from mining
operations (Factor A). Disturbance from hunting, egg collection, and
tourism exacerbates the species' poor breeding success (Factor E).
Therefore, we find that hunting for local consumption, egg collection,
and tourism are threats to the continued existence of the Andean
flamingo throughout its range.
With regard to hunting for international trade, we believe that the
small number of live specimens that were traded and the near lack of
trade for commercial purposes, combined with the fact that there have
been no shipments of live Andean flamingos since 1982, indicate that
the level of international trade, controlled via valid CITES permits,
is small. Therefore, we find that harvest of flamingos for
international trade is not a threat to the continued existence of the
Andean flamingo.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease: Flamingos are nomadic species with the potential to
disperse pathogenic microorganisms and horizontally transmit disease
agents due to their flocking behavior (Uhart et al. 2006, p. 32). Uhart
et al. (2006, p. 32) found 13 antibodies for various infectious
diseases (indicating exposure) in a study of all 3 altiplano flamingos.
Changes in water availability and habitat quality may favor the
emergence of pathogens, which could affect the health of flamingos
(Uhart et al. 2006, p. 32). However, we are not aware of any pathogenic
diseases that are currently affecting Andean flamingos in the wild.
A massive mortality of flamingos and other aquatic birds (on the
order of several thousands) was recorded in January 1975 around the
mouth of the Segundo River in Mar Chiquita (Argentina). Bucher (1992,
p. 183) believed the observed mortality was caused by an outbreak of
avian botulism. The affected birds showed typical field signs of the
disease (Locke and Friend 1987, as cited in Bucher 1992, p. 183),
including: Paralysis of voluntary muscles, inability to walk or fly,
and a tendency to congregate along vegetated peninsulas and islands,
where lines of carcasses were seen at the water's edge. Avian botulism
outbreaks are associated with receding water conditions in areas of
flooded vegetation during periods of high temperatures (Bucher 1992, p.
183). Thus, activities that decrease water levels at the lakes, as
outlined in Factor A, could cause disease outbreaks and result in
flamingo mortality.
In 2002, Fabry and Hilliard (2006, p. 49) began a flamingo
monitoring program in the Atacama Desert to
[[Page 79239]]
explore the declining flamingo populations in the region, test for
linkages between human activity and declining flamingo populations, and
evaluate flamingo health. The team has marked and released over 80
flamingos and has identified several pathogens, including Newcastle's
disease, Avian influenza, and West Nile virus, as possible causes for
increasing flamingo mortality. This research is ongoing.
Predation: Walcott (1925, p. 354) noted that fresh-water gulls
(Larus serranus) at Laguna Colorada (Bolivia) were likely predating
flamingo eggs. Other potential predators include the Andean wolf
(Dusicyon cuplaeus), pampas fox (Dusicyon griseus), variable hawk
(Buteo poecilochrous), and Andean caracara (Phalcobaenus albogularis).
Johnson et al. (1958, p. 299) concluded predation by land-bound
predators was not a significant threat to this species, given the
difficulty of access to nesting sites. However, nesting sites are no
longer as inaccessible as they were in the mid-20th century. Human
activities (such as mining, urbanization, tourism, and concomitant
infrastructure development) have infiltrated wetlands previously
considered inaccessible (Factor A). This situation has been compounded
by the ongoing drought conditions throughout a large portion of the
Andean flamingo's range (Factor E). In January 1996, Caziani &
Derlindati (2000, p. 124) reported that a colony of unidentified
flamingo nests at Lagunas Vilama, where Andean and James' flamingo are
known to breed, were found on dry land--probably due to an unexpected
retraction of the lake--leaving 1,500 abandoned nests, some of which
had eggs from that season. Because this species nests in the open,
laying eggs directly on the ground, many nesting sites can be more
easily accessed by humans and non-human predators. In the 2006-2007
breeding season, Childress et al. (2007, p. 7) noted that an entire
colony of 600 unidentified flamingo nests at Laguna Brava (Argentina,
where Andean flamingos are known to nest) had been decimated by foxes
(species not identified). The Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal
(1996a, p. 12) reported that foxes ate flamingo eggs and chicks at Los
Flamingos National Reserve (Chile) but did not document the extent of
this predation.
Summary of Factor C
Several diseases have been identified in the flamingo population
and are being monitored. Potential for disease outbreaks warrants
continued monitoring and may become a more significant threat factor in
the future, especially if habitat alteration combined with the ongoing
drought continue to decrease water levels at the lakes (Factors A and
E). Disease has been identified and has at least in one case likely
caused mortality (botulism). Therefore, we find that disease in
flamingos is a threat to the continued existence of the Andean
flamingo.
Predation by foxes, gulls, and other predators results in direct
removal of eggs, juveniles, and adults from the population. Predation
can have devastating consequences for the species, especially given the
colonial nature of the species and its tendency to nest in only a few
wetlands each year. Predation removes potentially reproductive adults
from the breeding pool, disrupts mating pairs, and exacerbates the
species' already poor breeding success (these effects are discussed in
detail under Factor B). Therefore, we find that predation is a threat
to the continued existence of the Andean flamingo throughout its range.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Two regulatory issues can be discussed on a regional level:
Protections under CITES, and Ramsar designations.
CITES: The Andean flamingo is listed in Appendix II of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). CITES is an international treaty among 173 nations,
including all four Andean flamingo countries and the United States,
that entered into force in 1975 (UNEP-WCMC 2008a, p. 1). In the United
States, CITES is implemented through the U.S. Endangered Species Act
(Act). The Act designates the Secretary of the Interior as the
Scientific and Management Authorities to implement the treaty with all
functions carried out by the Service. Under this treaty, countries work
together to ensure that international trade in animal and plant species
is not detrimental to the survival of wild populations, by regulating
the import, export, re-export, and introduction from the sea of CITES-
listed animal and plant species (USFWS 2008, p. 1). As discussed under
Factor B, we do not consider international trade to be a threat
impacting the Andean flamingo and consider that this international
treaty has minimized the potential threat to the species from
international trade.
Ramsar: The Ramsar Convention, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is
an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national
action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use
of wetlands and their resources. There are presently 157 Contracting
Parties to the Convention (including all of the countries where the
Andean flamingo occurs), with 1,702 wetland sites, totaling 153 million
hectares, designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of
International Importance. Many wetlands of importance to the Andean
flamingo's life cycle are designated as wetlands of international
importance under the Ramsar Convention. In Argentina, these include:
Laguna de Mar Chiquita (B[aacute]rbaro 2002, pp. 1-12), Lagunas de
Vilama (de la Zerda et al. 2000, pp. 1-6), Laguna Brava (de la Fuente
2002, pp. 1-10), and Laguna de Pozuelos (Administration de Parques
Nacionales 1994, pp. 1-3). In Bolivia, Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru
(Rocha 2002, pp. 1-13) and Laguna Colorada (Rocha and Eyzaguirre 1998,
pp. 1-11) are Ramsar wetlands. Chilean Ramsar wetlands include Laguna
del Negro Francisco and Laguna Santa Rosa (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional
Forestal 1996c, pp. 1-12); Salar de Huasco (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional
Forestal 1996b, pp. 1-5); and Salar de Surire (Soto 1996, pp. 1-9). In
Peru, Lago Titicaca (INRENA 1996, pp. 1-14) and Laguna Salinas
(Jefatura de la Reserva Nacional de Salinas y Aguada Blanca 2003, pp.
1-14) are Ramsar wetlands. Experts consider Ramsar to provide only
nominal protection of wetlands, although they also note that such a
designation may increase international awareness of its ecological
value (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 19). However, as described below,
activities that negatively impact the Andean flamingo are ongoing
within Ramsar wetlands, including the curtailment and destruction of
Andean flamingo habitat (Factor A), and hunting and overutilization of
Andean flamingos (Factor B). As such, this designation has not
mitigated the impact of threats on the Andean flamingo.
Due to the wide range of Andean flamingos in four countries along
the Andes, the remaining analysis of existing regulatory mechanisms
will be presented on a country-by-country basis, in alphabetical order.
Argentina: The Andean flamingo is considered vulnerable in
Argentina (Goldfeder & Blanco 2007, p. 191). The Law of Provincial Game
No. 3,014/73 (Law No. 3,014 1973, pp. 1-5) was established in Argentina
in 1973. Article 7 of this law strictly prohibits hunting, possession,
or transportation of wild animals, their parts, offspring, nests, or
eggs, except as permitted by regulation (Law No. 3014, p. 7).
Resolution No. 513/2007 (2007, pp. 1-7) and Resolution No. 1,089/98
(1998, pp. 1-4) prohibit
[[Page 79240]]
hunting, trapping, interprovincial transport, or international trade in
certain species of wildlife, including the Andean flamingo. Despite
this law, hunting for local consumption of Andean flamingo individuals
and eggs continues at wetlands of known importance in Argentina,
including Laguna Pozuelos and Mar Chiquita (Barbar[aacute]n 2004, p.
11; Bucher 1992, p. 183; Senz 2006, p. 103) (see Factor B). Therefore,
these laws are inadequate to mitigate the threat of Andean flamingo
hunting for local consumption.
Protected areas have been established by regulation at several
sites occupied by the Andean flamingo in Argentina, including: (a)
Laguna Brava and Laguna de Mulas Muertas, (b) Laguna de Mar Chiquita,
(c) Laguna de Pozuelos, and (d) Lagunas de Vilama. As described below,
the regulatory mechanisms behind these designations are inadequate to
address or mitigate ongoing activities that are negatively impacting
the Andean flamingo within these protected areas, including the
curtailment and destruction of Andean flamingo habitat (Factor A), and
hunting and overutilization of Andean flamingos (Factor B).
(a) Laguna Brava and Laguna de Mulas Muertas: Provincial Law No.
3944 declared the creation of the Reserva de Vicu[ntilde]as y
Protecci[oacute]n del Ecosistema Laguna Brava, establishing Laguna
Brava as a protected reserve in La Rioja Province (BLI 2008, p. 40).
Laguna Mulas Muertas, where the Andean flamingo has overwintered, is
also included within this reserve (BLI 2008, p. 40; Bucher et al. 2000,
p. 120). This law also established the designated managing authorities
and provided for the formulation of regulations for the operation of
the Reserve, under the Provincial System of Protected Areas. There is
an outpost for park rangers in the town of Alto Jague that is equipped
with a 4x4 vehicle and a permanent staff of four park rangers assigned
to the protected area. Despite this designation, the habitat within the
reserve continues to be curtailed and disrupted by human activities.
Recent road construction (de la Fuente 2002, p. 8) (see Factor A) and
increased tourism, including the use of off-road vehicles (BLI 2008, p.
40) (see Factors A and B), are ongoing. Multinational mining companies
have undertaken prospecting activities within the Reserve, indicating
the potential that mineral extraction could occur there (de la Fuente
2002, p. 8) (see Factor A).
(b) Laguna de Mar Chiquita: Laguna de Mar Chiquita is an important
wintering site for Andean flamingos and was included in the System of
Protected Nature Areas of the Province of C[oacute]rdoba in 1966 (BLI
2008, pp. 34-37). In 1994, the area was declared a multiple-use reserve
(Reserva de Ba[ntilde]ados del R[iacute]o Dulce y Laguna de Mar
Chiquita) (BLI 2008, p. 36; Ducks Unlimited 2007a, p. 22). In
accordance with existing legislation, environmental protection is
achieved through the regulated use of natural resources, respecting its
characteristics, ecological status, wildlife and potential resources.
In 2000, a group of provincial park wardens was formed to patrol the
reserve. In 2001, there were four new park wardens, one expert and a
technician to implement environmental legislation in the reserve
(B[aacute]rbaro 2002, p. 10). Activities that cause habitat destruction
are ongoing around Mar Chiquita, including pollution from agriculture,
water contamination from agrochemicals (BLI 2008, pp. 36-37; Johnson
and Arengo 2001, p. 38) (see Factor A), and disturbance from ecotourism
activities (Ducks Unlimited 2007a, p. 22) (see Factor B).
(c) Laguna de Pozuelos: Located in Jujuy Province, Laguna de
Pozuelos was designated a Natural Monument in 1981 and a UNESCO
Biosphere Reserve in 1990 (BLI 2008, p. 31; Ducks Unlimited 2007a, p.
2). It is managed by the National Parks Administration of Argentina and
is subject to the regulation of Law No. 22,351 (1980, pp. 1-11)
concerning National Parks, Natural Monuments, and National Reserves
(Administration de Parques Nacionales 1994, pp. 1-2). Under Law No.
22,351 (1980, p. 2), an area that has been declared a Natural Monument
is conferred ``absolute'' protection, such that the land, things, and
species of animals and plants thereon are inviolable. Despite this
protection, mining and resultant water contamination continue (de la
Fuente 2002, p. 8; Ducks Unlimited 2007a, p. 4; Goldfeder and Blanco
2007, p. 193) (see Factor A). According to the National Park
Administration, a ``trained'' warden is posted at the site
(Administration de Parques Nacionales 1994, pp. 1-2). Despite this,
hunting continues to threaten the Andean flamingo at Laguna Pozuelos,
where individuals and their eggs are hunted for subsistence and local
commerce (Administration de Parques Nacionales 1994, p. 2; BLI 2008, p.
31) (see Factor B).
(d) Lagunas de Vilama: The lakes that form Lagunas de Vilama are
located within the Reserva Altoandina de la Chinchilla, under the
jurisdiction of the province of Jujuy in accordance with Provincial
Decree No. 2,213E-92 (BLI 2008, pp. 52-53; de la Zerda et al. 2000, p.
5; Provincial Decree No. 2,213E 1992, pp. 1-5). This Reserve, along the
Argentinean/Chilean border, was created in 1992 specifically to protect
the chinchilla (Eriomis brevicaudata), the vicu[ntilde]a (Vicugna
vicugna), and numerous birds (Provincial Decree No. 2,213 E 1992, p.
1). Despite this regulation, habitat destruction caused by prospecting
for minerals and tourism (Factor A) and egg collection (Factor B) are
factors that continue to threaten the Andean flamingo within the
Lagunas de Vilama wetland system (BLI 2008, p. 553; Caziani et al.
2001, p. 106).
Bolivia: The 1975 Law on Wildlife, National Parks, Hunting and
Fishing (Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 1-34) has the fundamental
objective of protecting the country's natural resources. This law
governs the protection, management utilization, transportation, and
selling of wildlife and their products; the protection of endangered
species; habitat conservation of fauna and flora; and the declaration
of national parks, biological reserves, refuges, and wildlife
sanctuaries, tending to the preservation, promotion, and rational use
of these resources. However, hunting of flamingos continues to be a
threat at Lake Poop[oacute] (Rocha 2002, p. 10; S[aacute]enz 2006, pp.
88-89) (Factor B).
Wetlands frequented by the Andean flamingo in Bolivia that have
some level of protected status include: (a) Lago Poop[oacute] and (b)
Laguna Colorada, Laguna Kalina, and Salar de Chalviri. However, the
regulations are ineffective at reducing the threat of habitat
destruction (Factor A), hunting and egg collection (Factor B) and human
disturbance (Factor E) within these protected areas.
(a) Lago Poop[oacute]: In 2000, Lago Poop[oacute], an overwintering
site for the Andean flamingo (see Current Range), was declared a
natural heritage site and ecological reserve under Law No. 2,097 (2000,
pp. 7-8) (Declaration of National Patrimony and Ecological Reserve of
Oruru, for Lake Poop[oacute] in the Department of Oruru). Law No. 2,097
(2000, p. 7) allowed for international cooperation on the conservation
and rehabilitation of the lake. However, as of 2002, Rocha (2002, p.
11) noted that little had been done to ensure the lake's conservation.
In their review of the conservation and management challenges of saline
lakes, Jellison et al. (2004, p. 14) concluded that because Lago
Poop[oacute] is not part of the national system of protected areas
there has been little attention to its conservation and ``wise use''
(Jellison et al. 2004, p. 14).
Lago Poop[oacute] is on the terminal end of the TDPS (Titicaca-
Desaguadero-Poop[oacute]-Salar de Coipasa) hydrological system
[[Page 79241]]
along the border with Peru (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11, 120), with
Lago Titicaca straddling the border between the two countries
(Ronteltap et al. 2005, p. 1) (see Current Range: Bolivia). Water
contamination from mining and metallurgical industries has contaminated
the TDPS water system for many years (Adamek et al. 1998, Cardoza et
al. 2004--as cited in Jellison et al. 2004, p. 12; Jellison et al.
2004, p. 11; Ricalde 2003, pp. 10, 91). Because Lago Poop[oacute] is
located at the terminal end of the endoreic (closed) TDPS drainage
system, pollutants are more likely to concentrate there (Jellison et
al. 2004, p. 120) (Factor A). In addition to water contamination,
Andean flamingos at Lago Poop[oacute] are exposed to threats from
indiscriminant hunting (Rocha 2002, p. 10; S[aacute]enz 2006, pp. 88-
89) (Factor B).
(b) Laguna Colorada, Laguna Kalina, and Salar de Chalviri: Lagunas
Colorada and Kalina are important breeding sites that belong to the
same hydrological water basin (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 13). Salar de
Chalviri is a wetland complex that provides habitat for the Andean
flamingo during the winter. Laguna Colorada was one of five wetlands,
and the only wetland in Bolivia that, in 2005, harbored 50 percent of
the breeding population (Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13). In the most
recent simultaneous census, for 2006-2007, breeding in Bolivia occurred
only at two wetlands, Laguna Colorada and Kalina (see Current Range).
Therefore, the effects of habitat reduction (Factor A), hunting, and
tourism (Factor B) at these wetlands greatly diminish the numbers of
reproductive adults and juvenile offspring, and the overall breeding
success of the species.
The Eduardo Avaroa National Reserve (La Reserva Nacional de Fauna
Andina Eduardo Avaroa) (Reserve) was established in 1973 (Supreme
Decree 11,231 1973, pp. 1-2), expressly to protect Laguna Colorada for
its role in supporting a large diversity of wildlife, including rare
species such as the Andean flamingo, and to counter a growing commerce
in these species, which were being harvested from the area. The Decree
established the boundaries of the Reserve, declared hunting within the
park illegal, established a guard post within the park, and empowered
the Minister of Agriculture and Cattle to conduct the necessary
biological and ecological studies to manage the park. The area of the
Reserve was defined as Laguna Colorada itself (which covers
approximately 12,948 ac (5,240 ha)) (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 13),
plus a 6-mi (10-km) radial area surrounding the lake (Supreme Decree
No. 11,239 1973, p. 1). Under Supreme Decree No. 18,431 (1981, pp. 1-2)
the limits of the Reserve were extended to 1,764,515 acres (714,074
ha). With this expansion, Laguna Kalina and Salar de Chalviri were thus
incorporated within the Reserve (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, pp. 13-16). In
1992, the Reserve was added to the Protected Area System (Sistema
Nacional de Areas Protegidas (SNAP)) (FUNDESNAP 2008, p. 1; Rocha and
Eyzaguirre 1998, pp. 8-9).
As of 1998, the Reserve had a management plan, but it was not being
implemented. However, efforts were being made to manage tourism with
the objective of wetland conservation and to patrol the area in order
to avoid pilferage of flamingo eggs during the breeding season (Rocha
and Eyzaguirre 1998, pp. 8-9). As of 2004, the following ongoing
problems were identified within the Reserve: Uncontrolled and badly
managed tourism; high concentrations of activities within the lagoons,
including Laguna Colorada; lack of environmental controls for the
mining industry; implementation of a geothermal project; uncertain
financing to support activities to manage the protected area;
unregulated use of archeological and natural resources; and weak
management of the protected area (Flores 2004, p. 5). At Laguna
Colorada, water contamination from tourism (RIDES 2005, p. 21; Rocha
and Eyzaguirre 1998, p. 8) and livestock grazing are ongoing (Ducks
Unlimited 2007b, p. 14; Flores 2004, pp. 35-36) (Factor A). Egg
collecting has been reported at Laguna Colorada for many years
(Hurlbert and Keith 1979, p. 332; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 292; Rocha
and Eyzaguirre 1998, p. 1) and continues to be a problem within the
Reserve (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 17) (Factor B). Disturbance caused
by collection activities further compounds the adverse effects of egg
collection (see Factor E).
Supreme Decree No. 28,591 (2006, pp. 2-17) regulated the management
of tourism within the protected areas that make up the National System
of Protected Areas. It established a framework of regulatory provisions
related to tourism so that each protected area could develop rules
specific to the reserve, to ensure the conservation and protection of
natural and cultural heritage. The Eduardo Avaroa National Reserve
(Reserve) has been working toward a tourism management program for some
time, including the collection and examination of tourism data for the
Reserve in order to better understand how the Reserve is used and how
to adjust their management of activities (Gonz[aacute]lez 2006, p. 1).
However, tourism continues to increase within the Reserve
(Gonz[aacute]lez 2006, p. 2), with concomitant stress on and
contamination of the water resources (RIDES 2005, p. 21; Rocha and
Eyzaguirre 1998, p. 8) (Factor A), along with the deleterious effect of
human disturbance on the species (CONAF, Region II, as cited in INRENA
1996, p. 11) (Factor E).
Chile: Chile outlined the methods by which they classify various
wild species as threatened or endangered species under Supreme Decree
No. 75 (2006, pp. 1-6)--Reglamento para la Clasificaci[oacute]n de
Especies Silvestres--and has just initiated the process of classifying
species with the publication of two proposed lists of species (Exenta
No. 1,579 2006, pp. 1-4) (Da Inicio a Proceso de Clasificaci[oacute]n
de Especies e Indica Listado de Especies a Clasificar), but the Andean
flamingo has not been listed nor has it been proposed for listing as
threatened or endangered (see http://www.conama.cl/
clasificacionespecies/). Therefore, there is no regulatory mechanism
that specifically protects the Andean flamingo on a national level.
The Chilean National Commission on the Environment (Comisi[oacute]n
Nacional del Medio Ambiente (CONAMA)) was established in 1990 and, in
March 1994, the General Environmental Law (Ley de Bases Generales del
Medio Ambiente) went into effect. The General Environmental Law
restructured CONAMA and introduced new instruments of environmental
management that had not previously existed: Environmental education and
research; public participation; environmental quality standards to
preserve nature and environmental heritage; emission standards; plans
for management, prevention, and cleanup; responsibility for
environmental damage; and the system of environmental impact
assessment. Under the General Environmental Law, several new
regulations have been established over more than twenty areas,
including atmospheric, water, noise, and light pollution (Embassy of
Chile 2007, pp. 1-2). However, water contamination from mineral
extraction, agricultural pursuits, sewage and trash (Factor A) and
disturbance from noise (Factor E) are ongoing at Chilean wetlands of
importance to Andean flamingo life cycle, including: (a) Laguna
Ascot[aacute]n and (b) Salar de Atacama. Therefore, this regulatory
mechanism is not being effectively implemented to reduce the threats to
the Andean flamingo.
(a) Laguna Ascot[aacute]n was once considered a breeding site for
the
[[Page 79242]]
species (Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296; Kahl 1975 p. 100). While the
species continues to to feed at the site (Vilina and Mart[iacute]nez
1998, p. 28), there are no recent reports of nesting there. This may be
attributed to mineral extraction (including borax) (Johnson 1958, p.
296) (Factor A) and concomitant disturbance activities (Factor E).
(b) Salar de Atacama has been a consistent and primary breeding
ground (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7; Ducks
Unlimited 2007c, pp. 1-4; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296). Mining
activities and increased human presence and tourism has disturbed
foraging and nesting birds there (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal
1996a, p. 9). Over 50,000 people visit Salar de Atacama (Chile) and
surrounding areas each year (RIDES 2005, p. 21). These activities lead
to water pollution, increased water usage, and disturbance of the
flamingo life cycle. The breeding success of the species has been
steadily decreasing at Salar de Atacama (Fabry and Hilliard 2006, p.
1). In Chile, breeding was attempted at four sites in Salar de Atacama.
A total of 2,900 pairs of Andean flamingos laid eggs, but only 538
chicks survived (Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7).
Protected areas have been established by regulation at four sites
occupied by the Andean flamingo in Chile: (a) Laguna del Negro
Francisco, (b) Salar de Surire, and (c) Lagunas Atacama and Pujsa.
These wetlands have figured as consistent breeding and overwintering
habitats for many years (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Childress et al.
2007a, p. 7; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, pp. 1-4; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe
1990, p. 86; Hellmayr 1932, p. 312; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296; Kahl
1975 p. 100). However, as described below, the regulations are
ineffective at reducing the threats of habitat destruction (Factor A),
hunting and egg collection (Factor B), and human disturbance (Factor E)
within these protected areas.
(a) Laguna del Negro: Salar de Negro Francisco provides year-round
habitat for the Andean flamingo (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Ducks
Unlimited 2007c, p. 6; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112). Laguna del Negro
Francisco was included in the Parque Nacional Nevado Tres Cruces that
forms part of the national system of protected wildlife areas (SNASPE)
(Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996c, p. 11). Despite this
designation, the Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal (1996c, pp. 10-
11) reported several persistent threats, including: (1) Concessions for
water use held by the mining companies that work on the altiplano; (2)
prospecting and digging for minerals and underground water, which
involves road building that makes it possible for people to reach
places that were formerly inaccessible; (3) intense illegal bird
hunting (Bucher 1992, p. 183, Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal
1996c, p. 11); and (4) uncontrolled tourism, especially the use of
four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal
1996c, pp. 10-11).
(b) Salar de Surire: Andean flamingos breed and overwinter at this
wetland (Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279;
McFarlane 1975, p. 88; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112). In 2001, Salar de
Surire, along with Salar de Atacama, was the most successful Andean
flamingo breeding site in Chile (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279). The
Parque Nacional Lauca was created in 1970, incorporating approximately
1,285,000 acres (520,000 ha), including the Salar de Surire. In 1983,
the limits of the national park were redefined, and three
administrative units for protected nature areas were created: The
present Parque Nacional Lauca, the National Nature Reserve Las
Vicu[ntilde]as, and the Salar de Surire Nature Reserve, including part
of the salt marsh of 27,906 acres (11,298 ha) (Soto 1996, p. 8). Lauca
Biosphere Reserve (including all three administrative units) was
designated a UNESCO Biosphere reserve in 1983 (Rundel and Palma 2000,
p. 262). Despite this designation, the threat of mining in the park
continues (Rundel and Palma 2000, pp. 270-271). The number of people
visiting remote Salar de Surire (Chile), a primary Andean flamingo
breeding site, was under 1,000 as of 1995, but increasing (Soto 1996,
p. 7). One travel Web site advertises the availability of a campsite,
(http://www.chilecontact.com/en/conozca/surire.php), noting that no
public transportation is available and recommending the use of four-
wheel drive vehicles to access and tour the area. The impact of tourism
is discussed under Factor B.
(c) Salars de Pujsa and Atacama: As mentioned above, Salar de
Atacama provides year-round flamingo habitat and nesting sites. Salar
de Pujsa was reported as a nesting site in 1997 (Valqui et al. 2000, p.
112), although no nesting was reported there in the 2004, 2005, or 2006
breeding seasons (Childress et al. 2005, p. 7; Childress et al. 2006,
p. 7; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7). These Salars are among the
wetlands that were included in the Los Flamencos National Reserve
(Reserve), designated in April 1990 by Decree No. 50 of the Ministry of
Agriculture, although only part of Salar de Atacama is included. These
wetlands form an important area for the biological stability of
flamingo populations (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996a, pp.
12-13).
In addition to the Reserve management plan, there is a proposed
strategy for the sustainable management and regulation of activities in
the salt marshes and for their conservation. The most recent reports
available deem the management at this site insufficient, due to the
limited number of staff and the large area of the reserve
(Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996a, pp. 12-13). Locals at
Salar de Atacama hunt the Andean flamingo for its feathers and for
ritualistic use (Castro and Varela 1992, p. 22) (Factor B). Road
building has increased access to nesting areas and facilitated hunting
and egg collection (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996a, pp. 11-
12; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, p. 3) (Factor A). Water extraction in this
endoreic (closed) basin, which is fed only by summer storms and winter
snowmelts, is ongoing (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996a, pp.
8-9). The rights to 13,137 ft\3\/s (6.2 m\3\/s) of water have been
allocated; however, the water recharge in the basin is only about
10,594 ft\3\/s (5 m\3\/s) (RIDES 2005, p. 16) (Factor A).
Peru: The Andean flamingo is considered vulnerable by the Peruvian
government under Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG (2004, p. 276855),
which prohibits hunting, taking, transport, or trade of endangered
species, except as permitted by regulation. At Laguna Salinas (an
overwintering site in Peru), hunters have killed flamingos for target
practice or just ``to get a close look at one.'' The extent of this
persecution at Laguna Salinas is unclear, but may have abated since
installation of a watch post in mid-1998 (Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-
Echegaray 2000, p. 137). At Lago Titicaca (Peru), localized hunting and
the collection of birds' eggs may be ongoing (Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p.
27). Excessive hunting is a problem at Lago Parinacochas (an
overwintering site in Peru) (Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 23). Therefore,
this regulatory mechanism is ineffective at protecting the Andean
flamingo or mitigating the threat of hunting (Factor B).
Protected areas have been established through regulation at two
sites occupied by the Andean flamingo in Peru: (a) Laguna Salinas and
(b) Lago Titicaca. Lagunas Salinas has long provided overwintering
habitat for the Andean flamingo (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Hellmayr
& Conover 1948, p. 277; Kahl 1975, pp. 99-100). Fourteen percent of the
population overwintered there in 2003 (Ricalde 2003, p. 91). Lago
Titicaca is part of the TDPS wetland system, to which Lagos
Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru (Bolivia) belong. This wetlands complex
[[Page 79243]]
provides an important variety of overwintering habitat for the Andean
flamingo, where more than 50 percent of the known population of Andean
flamingos overwintered in 2000 (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Mascitti
and Bonaventura 2002, p. 62). However, as described below, the
regulations are ineffective at reducing the threat of habitat
destruction (Factor A), hunting and egg collection (Factor B),
predation (Factor C), and human disturbance (Factor E) within these
protected areas.
(a) Laguna Salinas: Laguna Salinas is part of the Reserve National
Salinas and Aguada Blanca (Reserve), established by Supreme Decree No.
070-79-AA in 1979 (1979, pp. 260-262). A master plan for the Reserve
was adopted in 2001 (Jefatura de la Reserva Nacional de Salinas y
Aguada Blanca 2003, pp. 6-7). However, at Laguna Salinas, which
provides habitat for all three Andean flamingo species (Ducks Unlimited
2007d, p. 26), the habitat is being destroyed or modified by mining,
fires, agriculture, and drainage for drinking water (Ricalde 2003, p.
91; Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 135) (Factor A).
Flamingos are absent from polluted areas of the lake (Factor A); Andean
flamingos are sensitive to reduced water levels (Factor A); and
disturbance activities disrupt flamingo nesting and eating habits on
the lake (Factor E) (Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, pp.
135, 137, 139). In addition to reducing flamingo habitat availability,
increased road construction to support mining and tourism (Factor A)
facilitates hunting and predator access to nesting grounds
(Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996a, pp. 12) (Factors B and C).
(b) Lago Titicaca: The Titicaca National Reserve (Reserva Nacional
del Titicaca) (Reserve) (89,364 acres (36,180 ha)) encompasses
approximately 8 percent of the Peruvian portion of Lago Titicaca
(Supreme Decree No. 185-78-AA 1978, p. 257). The Reserve was created in
1978 (Chief Resolution No. 311-2001-INRENA 2001, pp. 413-415) to
guarantee the conservation of its natural resources because of the
existence of exceptional characteristics of wild fauna and flora,
scenic beauty, and traditional use of natural resources in harmony with
the environment. In addition, it was created to promote the
socioeconomic development of the neighboring populations through the
wise use of natural resources and the promotion of tourism. The
Peruvian Navy controls navigation on all of the lakes in Peru,
including boats that visit the reserve. It also patrols and monitors
the border, and ensures compliance with regulations on hunting and the
use of wildlife resources from the lake (INRENA 1996, pp. 9-10). The
Institute of Natural Resources (Instituto Nacional de Recursos
Naturales--INRENA), noted that the large number of visitors and noise
disturbance from motorized vehicles negatively impacted the number of
birds on the lake (Factor E) (INRENA 1996, p. 6). The waters of Lago
Titicaca are polluted from boat traffic and domestic sewage, and
localized hunting and egg collection may be occurring there (Ducks
Unlimited 2007d, p. 27; Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11; Ricalde 2003, p.
91).
Summary of Factor D
The existing regulatory mechanisms or enforcement of these
mechanisms throughout the species' range are inadequate to protect the
Andean flamingo or mitigate the factors that are negatively impacting
the species and its habitat, including habitat destruction (Factor A),
hunting and tourism (Factor B), predation (Factor C), and disturbance
(Factor E). Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to mitigate the threats to the continued existence of
the Andean flamingo throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
Two additional factors are having a negative impact on the Andean
flamingo population: human disturbance and ongoing drought.
Human disturbance: Walcott (1925, pp. 355-356) noted that the birds
are shy and, when eggs are collected by humans, Andean flamingos do not
return to lay a second egg. Jameison and Bingham (1912, pp. 12, 14)
noted that extensive sheep and cattle pastures existed around Lago
Parinacochas and that flamingos no longer nested there. Many human-
induced disturbances exist throughout the Andean flamingos' range.
Mining, population growth, tourism, and associated road construction
and maintenance generally increase disturbance and noise and can make
nesting and foraging areas unsuitable for the Andean flamingo. These
disturbances have led to decreased numbers of birds foraging and
nesting at several sites that are important for the Andean flamingo
reproductive cycle, including: Salar de Atacama (Chile)
(Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996a, p. 9), Laguna Colorada
(Bolivia) (Rocha and Eyzaguirre 1998, p. 8), and the TDPS wetland
system (INRENA 1996, p. 6). Flamingos that are disturbed during nesting
season have been known to abandon their nests (Ugarte-Nunez and
Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 137). Road construction has increased
access to wetlands, facilitating additional disturbances from foot
traffic and motorized vehicles at lakes, such as Laguna Salinas (Peru)
(Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 137), Lago Loriscota
(Peru) (Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112), Laguna Brava (Argentina) (BLI
2008, p. 40; de la Fuente 2002, p. 8), and Lago Titicaca (Peru) (INRENA
1996, p. 6). Disturbance has increased with the increase in tourism and
human encroachment into Andean flamingo wetlands, including: Laguna de
Mar Chiquita (Argentina) (Ducks Unlimited 2007a, p. 22), Laguna Brava
(Argentina) (BLI 2008, p. 40), Lagunas de Vilama (Argentina) (Caziani
et al. 2001, p. 106), Laguna Negra (Argentina) (Corporaci[oacute]n
Nacional Forestal 1996c, pp. 10-11), Laguna de Colorada (Bolivia)
(Embassy of Bolivia 2008, pp. 7-8), Salar de Atacama (Chile), and the
TDPS wetland complex, which includes Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru
(Chile) (INRENA 1996, p. 6).
Long-lived species with slow rates of reproduction, such as the
Andean flamingo, can appear to have robust populations, but can quickly
decline towards extinction if reproduction does not keep pace with
mortality (BLI 2008, p. 2; Bucher 1992, p. 183; del Hoyo et al. 1992,
p. 517). In the case of Andean flamingos, Conway (W. Conway, as cited
in Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112) suggests that a stable population can be
maintained if the species' breeding success is good every 5-10 years.
Andean flamingos have temporally sporadic and spatially concentrated
breeding patterns, and their breeding success and recruitment are low
(Caziani et al. 2007; Childress et al. 2005, p. 7; Childress et al.
2006, p. 7; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7). Productivity estimates from
intensive studies of breeding sites in Chile indicate marked
fluctuations over the past 20 years, with periods of very low breeding
success (Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2). Reproduction is spatially
concentrated in just a few wetlands (Childress et al. 2005, p. 7;
Childress et al. 2006, p. 7; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7; Valqui et
al. 2000, p. 112).
Ongoing Drought: The altiplano region has been undergoing a drought
since the early 1990s. The water levels of the salars and lagunas
occupied by the Andean flamingo normally expand and contract
seasonally, depending in large part on summer rains to ``recharge'' or
refill them (Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani and Derlindati 2000, pp. 124-
125; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110; Mascitti and Caziani 1997, p. 328).
[[Page 79244]]
Laguna de Mar Chiquita (Argentina) fluctuates by up to 20 in. (50 cm)
in the dry season (Ducks Unlimited 2007a, p. 21). It is estimated that
up to 95 percent of the total water input in the TDPS water system
evaporates (Ronteltap et al. 2005, p. 2). In addition to the seasonal
cycle of expansion and contraction, there are longer-term cycles in
which lakes experience extended periods of expansion or contraction
(Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p. 122). For instance, Laguna Pozuelos
occasionally dries completely--on about a 100-year cycle. The last time
it dried out completely was in 1958 (Mascitti & Caziani 1997, p. 321).
According to researchers, wetlands have been drying out on a regional
scale since the early 1990s due to extensive drought conditions
(Caziani and Derlindati 2000, pp. 124-125; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110;
Mascitti and Caziani 1997, p. 328). The shallow wetlands preferred by
Andean flamingos are subject to high rates of evapotranspiration, and
drought conditions accelerate this process (Caziani and Derlindati
2000, p. 122).
Andean flamingos are sensitive to reduced water levels (Ugarte-
Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, pp. 135). The flamingo population
at Laguna Pozuelos, which has shrunk to an estimated 66 percent of its
usual size, has strongly diminished since the winter of 1993, which
researchers consider a result of extensive lake desiccation (Mascitti
and Caziani 1997, p. 328). Other wetlands are in the process of drying
out or shrinking as a result of the drought, including Salar de
Chalviri (Bolivia) (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, pp. 17-20); Lago
Poop[oacute] (Bolivia) (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 5); Lagunas Vilama
(Argentina) (Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p. 122); and the TDPS wetland
system (Bolivia, Chile, and Peru) (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11). Lago
Uru Uru (Bolivia) nearly dried out in 1983 but ``recharged'' in 1984
after flooding (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 5). Laguna Salinas (Peru)
nearly dried out in 1982-1983, but refilled during heavy rains in 1984.
Currently, the water fluctuates widely each year, nearly drying out
from September through January (Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 25).
Andean flamingos are equally sensitive to increasing water levels.
Recall that Andean flamingos generally occupy wetlands that are less
than 3 ft (1 m) deep (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Mascitti
and Caste[ntilde]era 2006, p. 331). In 1998, breeding was reported for
the first time at Laguna Brava. The same year, more than 7,000 non-
breeding birds were reported 4 mi (7 km) away at Laguna de Mulas
Muertas, which was not a normal feeding habitat. Bucher et al. (2000,
p. 120) believe this shift in habitat use was prompted by El
Ni[ntilde]o, which caused increased water levels at their usual nesting
and feeding sites across the border in Chile. Laguna de Mar Chiquita
(Argentina) experienced a period of ``exceptional flooding'' beginning
in 1977, such that nesting sites were inundated and the salinity of the
water decreased (Ducks Unlimited 2007a, p. 21). Long known only as an
overwintering site, breeding was recently reported at Mar Chiquita
(Childress et al. 2005, p. 6).
When winter brings increased aridity and lower temperatures,
higher-altitude wetlands may dry out or freeze over. Under these
conditions, Andean flamingos may move to lower altitudes (Blake 1977,
p. 207; Boyle et al. 2004, pp. 570-571; Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani et
al. 2006. p. 17; Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 279, 281; del Hoyo 1992, p.
519; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and Keith 1979, pp.
330; Mascitti and Bonaventura 2002, p. 360; Mascitti and
Casta[ntilde]era 2006, p. 328). Research has recently shown that Andean
flamingos use their habitat on a landscape level--beyond the Salar or
Laguna in which they feed or breed--using wetland systems that provide
a variety of habitat options from which to select optimal nesting and
feeding sites (Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p. 122; Caziani et al.
2001, pp. 104, 110; Derlandati 2008, p. 10). Flamingo productivity is
affected by climatic variability and its influence on water
availability during the breeding season (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 284).
Although the Andean flamingo can move between wetlands in response to
annual climatic variability (Bucher et al. 2000, pp. 119-120; Mascitti
2001, p. 20; Mascitti and Bonaventura 2002, pp. 362-364), drastic water
level changes can significantly alter the seasonal altitudinal
movements of the Andean flamingo (Mascitti and Caziani 1997, pp. 324-
326).
Summary of Factor E
The extent to which human disturbance has infiltrated Andean
flamingo habitat and the ongoing activities that contribute to this
disturbance could have long-lasting consequences on the population size
and age structure, especially considering the species' unique life-
history, breeding patterns, and recent years of low productivity (see
Population Estimates: Breeding Success). Therefore, we find that human
disturbance activities are threats to the continued existence of the
Andean flamingo throughout its range.
Andean flamingo habitat throughout the Andes is in the midst of an
ongoing drought. The species' reliance upon shallow wetlands during
their entire lifecycle makes them particularly vulnerable to threats
that influence the amount and distribution of precipitation, runoff, or
evapotranspiration. The drought is causing the shallow wetlands upon
which they depend for their entire life cycle to dry out or to
fluctuate widely from year to year, which disrupt the species' breeding
and feeding cycles, and can strand entire nesting colonies when waters
retract unexpectedly. These drought conditions are being exacerbated by
water extraction and pollution occurring throughout the species'
habitat (Factor A). Reduced water levels can increase access to nesting
sites, facilitating predation and hunting (Factors B and C). Therefore,
we find the ongoing drought to be a threat to the continued existence
of the Andean flamingo throughout its range.
Status Determination for the Andean Flamingo
The Andean flamingo is colonial, feeding and breeding in flocks,
and is the rarest of all six flamingo species worldwide. Experts
consider that the more dispersed nature of the species at smaller
nesting sites has inhibited reproduction in the species. The Andean
flamingo underwent a severe population decline in the last few decades,
from a conservative estimate of 50,000 to 100,000 in the early 1980s to
a current estimate of 34,000. This population decline coincides with
increased habitat alteration (Factor A), overutilization (Factor B),
disease and predation (Factor C), as well as increased human
disturbance and an ongoing drought (Factor E). The Andean flamingo's
entire life cycle relies on the availability of networks of shallow
saline wetlands (salars and lagunas) at low, medium, and high altitudes
that are characteristic throughout its range in Argentina, Bolivia,
Chile, and Peru. Several man-made and natural factors are having a
negative impact on the flamingo's persistence in the wild. These
factors include mining activities and resultant pollution, increasing
human population and water usage, hunting and egg collection, tourism,
predation, human disturbance, and drought conditions. Mining occurs at
many of the wetlands that the Andean flamingo depends upon for habitat.
The threats from mining include direct habitat destruction, water
pollution, water extraction, and disturbance (Factors A and E). Hunting
and egg collecting reduce the number of individuals in the population
and exacerbate the species' poor breeding
[[Page 79245]]
success, and low recruitment rate (Factor B). In combination with these
habitat threats, the altiplano region is undergoing a long-term
drought, which is impacting the availability and quality of wetlands
for feeding, breeding, and overwintering (Factor E). Increased tourism
at the wetlands is taxing limited water supplies, causing further water
contamination from trash and sewage, and increasing habitat disturbance
from human presence (Factors A and B). Infrastructure to support mining
and tourism destroys and increases access to Andean flamingo habitats,
facilitating hunting, egg collecting, and human influx, along with
increased pollution, water use, and disturbance (Factors A, B, and E).
Predation removes potentially reproductive adults from the breeding
pool, disrupts mating pairs, and exacerbates the species' already poor
breeding success and is facilitated by increased access to wetlands and
the ongoing drought (Factors A, B, and E). Many wetlands within
protected areas continue to undergo activities that destroy habitat or
remove individuals from the population (including hunting and egg
collecting), such that the regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to
mitigate the threats to the species and its habitat (Factor D). The
magnitude of the threats is exacerbated by the species' recent and
drastic reduction in numbers, poor breeding success and recruitment,
and the species' reliance on only a few wetlands for the majority of
its reproductive output.
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Based on the immediate and ongoing significant threats to the
Andean flamingo throughout its entire range, as described above, we
determine that the Andean flamingo is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are proposing to
list the Andean flamingo as an endangered species throughout all of its
range.
II. Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii)
Species Description
The Chilean woodstar, endemic to Chile and Peru, is a small
hummingbird in the Trochilidae family (BLI 2008). No larger than the
size of a moth (Johnson 1967, p. 121), the Chilean woodstar is
approximately 3 inches (in) (8 centimeters (cm)) in length and has a
short black bill (BLI 2008; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 674). Males have
iridescent olive-green upperparts, white underparts, and a bright
violet-red throat (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 674; Fjelds[aring] and
Krabbe 1990, p. 296). Females also have iridescent olive-green
upperparts; however, their underparts are buff (pale yellow-brown) and
they do not have a brightly colored throat (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe
1990, p. 296). The male Chilean woodstar has a strongly forked tail,
which is green in the center and blackish-brown on the ends, while the
female's tail is unforked and has broad white tips (BLI 2008). It is
also known as Yarrell's woodstar (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 647) and
Picaflor Chico de Arica (Johnson 1967, p. 121). The species is locally
known as ``Picaflor'' or ``Colibr[iacute]'' (Johnson 1967, p. 121).
Taxonomy
The species was first taxonomically described by Bourcier in 1847
and placed in Trochilidae as Eulidia yarrellii (BLI 2008). According to
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) species database, the Chilean woodstar is also
known by the synonyms Myrtis yarrellii and Trochilus yarrellii (UNEP-
WCMC 2008b). Both CITES and BirdLife International recognize the
species as Eulidia yarrellii (BLI 2008). Therefore, we accept the
species as Eulidia yarrellii, which follows the Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS 2008).
Habitat and Life History
Hummingbird habitat requirements are poorly understood (del Hoyo et
al. 1999, p. 490). Many species are highly adaptable, adjusting to
human-induced changes or expanding their ranges if food conditions are
favorable. Others rapidly decline or are in danger of extinction due to
environmental disturbances (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 490). The Chilean
woodstar has generally been described as inhabiting riparian thickets,
secondary growth, desert river valleys, arid scrub, agricultural lands,
and gardens (Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 233). Estades et al. (2007,
p. 169) looked at a variety of habitat variables in relation to Chilean
woodstar numbers and found that tree cover in September was the only
variable that significantly affected their abundance. In areas with
higher tree cover, more Chilean woodstars were observed (Estades et al.
2007, p. 169). During the rainy season, when woodstars have more
resources to exploit at higher elevations, the population is more
dispersed and vegetation variables do not appear to limit the abundance
of the species (Estades et al. 2007, p. 170).
As with all hummingbird species, the Chilean woodstar relies on
nectar-producing flowers for food but also relies on insects as a
source of protein (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 482; Estades et al. 2007,
p. 169). The Chilean woodstar drinks nectar from the flowers of a
variety of native trees such as Geoffroea decorticans (cha[ntilde]ar)
and Schinus molle (pimento), and ornamental plants such as Lantana
camara, Pelargonium spp., and Bougainvillea sp. (Estades et al. 2007,
p. 169). In addition, the species has been seen feeding from the
flowers of several crops, including alfalfa, garlic, onion, and tomato
(Estades et al. 2007, p. 169). Its small beak and body size enable it
to exploit flowers with very small corollas (collective term for the
petals of a flower) (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172).
Breeding activity likely takes place between August and September
(del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 674), although occasionally active nests have
been found at other times of the year, suggesting that there may be
some temporal variability (Estades et al. 2007, p. 169). Most nests
have been located in olive trees (Olea europaea) at an average height
of 7.5 1.3 ft (2.3 0.4 m), but a few nests
were found in native shrubs and ornamental trees (Estades et al. 2007,
p. 169).
A 2006 study by Estades and Aguirre (2006, p. 6) found Chilean
woodstars nesting in only one location, a site in the Chaca area of the
Vitor Valley that is less than 2.5 ac (1 ha) in size. The breeding site
is an old olive grove that is lightly managed and is not sprayed with
pesticides (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 6). The grove is surrounded by
Geoffroea decorticans (cha[ntilde]ares; Chilean Palo Verde) and citrus
trees, which both flower in September (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 6).
The location of the observed nests suggest to Estades and Aguirre
(2006, p. 6) that the Chilean woodstar does not place its nest at the
minimum distance from the food source, as would be expected according
to the optimal foraging theory. Instead, it appears that Chilean
woodstars build their nest at an intermediate distance of 164 ft (50 m)
from nectar sources (flowers) (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 6). Estades
and Aguirre (2006, p. 6) indicate that this may be a strategy the
Chilean woodstar employs to avoid the presence of other hummingbirds
around their nest. In addition, Estades and Aguirre (2006, p. 6) report
that it appears the quality of this particular olive grove is enhanced
by the nearby
[[Page 79246]]
presence of sheep, whose wool is used by the Chilean woodstar to build
its nest. As a result of this study, Estades and Aguirre (2006, p. 6)
state that the reproductive habitat of the Chilean woodstar requires an
adequate combination of nesting sites (olive and mango trees) and food
sources (small flowers).
Historical Range and Distribution
Historical evidence suggests that although the Chilean woodstar has
a limited distribution, it was locally abundant (Estades and Aguirre
2006, p. 2). However, beginning in the 1970s, the frequency of
observations of this species appears to have declined, recently to
levels considered alarming by some ornithologists (Estades and Aguirre
2006, p. 2).
Current Range and Distribution
The Chilean woodstar is endemic to a few river valleys near the
Pacific coast from Tacna, Peru, to northern Antofagasta, Chile (Collar
et al. 1992, p. 530; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 674; Johnson 1967, p.
121). This area lies at the northern edge of the Atacama Desert, one of
the driest places on Earth (Collar et al. 1992, p. 530). Current
populations are only known to occur in the Vitor and Azapa valleys, in
the Arica Department in extreme northern Chile (Estades et al. 2007, p.
168). There have been a few observations of this species in the town of
Tacna, Peru (near the border of Chile), but these observations have
been infrequent (Collar et al. 1992, p. 530) and there have been no
records of the species there in the last 20 years (Jaramillo 2003, as
cited in Estades et al. 2007, p. 164). At least some individuals appear
to move seasonally to higher elevations to exploit seasonal food
resources (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 296). Estades et al.
(2007, p. 170) hypothesize that these higher elevation valleys may
provide some connectivity between the lower elevation valleys,
otherwise isolated by the unvegetated expanses of the Atacama Desert.
In 1967, Johnson (1967, p. 121) described the Chilean woodstar as a
``species of extremely limited range and very small total population.''
However, Johnson (1967, p. 121) also stated that it was the most
abundant hummingbird in the Azapa Valley, where he and others counted
``over a hundred hovering like a swarm of bees.'' In September 2003,
using fixed-radius point counts and sampling an area larger than the
presumed range, Estades et al. (2007, pp. 168-169) found the Chilean
woodstar to be restricted to the Azapa and Vitor valleys of northern
Chile, and to be the rarest hummingbird in the Azapa Valley (Estades et
al. 2007, p. 170). Despite repeated searches, it was not found in the
Lluta Valley (Estades et al. 2007, p. 168), where it was previously
reported to breed (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 296). A further
study in the Azapa and Vitor valleys in 2006 found Chilean woodstars
nesting in only one location, a site in the Chaca area of the Vitor
Valley that is less than 2.5 ac (1 ha) in size (Estades and Aguirre
2006, p. 6).
Population Estimates
In September 2003, the Chilean woodstar population was estimated to
be 1,539 individuals (929-2,287; 90 percent confidence interval (CI))
with over 70 percent of the population found in the Azapa Valley
(Estades et al. 2007, p. 168). In April 2004, the population was
estimated to be 758 individuals (399-1,173; 90 percent CI), again with
over 70 percent of the population found in the Azapa Valley (Estades et
al. 2007, p. 168). Estades et al. (2007, p. 170) warn against
interpreting their results as a population crash from 2003 to 2004,
because the 2004 surveys were conducted in April, when food resources
and populations were more dispersed (Estades et al. 2007, p. 170).
Further population estimates were conducted by Estades (2007, in
litt.) in 2006 and 2007. In 2007, the population of Chilean woodstars
was estimated to be 1,256 individuals (694 in the Azapa Valley and 562
in the Vitor Valley) (Estades 2007, in litt.). Estades (2007, in litt.)
reports that, overall, the species declined between 2003 and 2007, even
though the Chilean woodstar population did increase between 2006 and
2007. Estades (2007, in litt.) attributes the increase in the
population of the species between 2006 and 2007 to an increase in the
number of individuals in the Vitor Valley, while the number of Chilean
woodstars in the Azapa Valley declined.
Conservation Status
The Chilean woodstar is listed as an ``endangered and rare''
species in Chile under Decree No. 151--Classification of Wild Species
According to Their Conservation Status (ECOLEX 2007). The species is
considered to be ``Endangered'' by IUCN, due to its very small range,
with all viable populations apparently confined to remnant habitat
patches in two desert river valleys (BLI 2008). These valleys are
heavily cultivated, and the extent, area, and quality of suitable
habitat are likely declining (BLI 2008).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Chilean Woodstar
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
The historical range of the Chilean woodstar has been severely
altered with extensive planting of olive and citrus groves in the
valleys of northern Chile and southern Peru (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p.
674). The native food plants of the species may have been drastically
reduced when habitat for the species was converted to agriculture; now
the species depends largely on introduced garden flowers as nectar
sources (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 674). Although the Chilean woodstar
is able to incorporate introduced plant species into its diet, the loss
of some native species likely continues to be a limiting factor for the
species (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172). As an example, Estades et al.
(2007, p. 172) report that one of the most likely reasons for the
disappearance of the Chilean woodstar from the Lluta Valley is the
cutting of almost all the cha[ntilde]ares (Geoffroea decorticans),
which is considered one of the most important food sources for the
species. Cha[ntilde]ares are cleared by farmers who consider it an
undesirable plant and an attractant to mice (Estades et al. 2007, p.
172).
In a study to estimate the population of the Chilean woodstar,
Estades (2007, in litt.) found a decrease in the population of the
Chilean woodstar in the Azapa Valley between 2006 and 2007. Estades
(2007, in litt.) associates this decline with the substantial increase
in agricultural development, related to the cultivation of tomatoes in
the Azapa Valley in recent years.
Chilean woodstars appear to rely primarily on introduced olive
trees for nesting (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172). The species has most
likely been forced to use orchards as nesting sites due to the paucity
of native trees (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172). Although olive trees are
not exposed to as many pesticides as other fruit trees in the region,
the use of high-pressure spraying (of water) to control mold threatens
the viability of nests and their contents (Estades et al. 2007, p.
172). Because of the small size of the remaining population (see Factor
E), the loss of even a few nests annually is a threat to the continued
existence of the species.
Summary of Factor A
As a result of extensive agriculture in the river valleys where the
Chilean woodstar occurs, most of its natural habitat is disappearing,
requiring the species to rely mainly on artificial
[[Page 79247]]
sources for feeding and nesting. Although the species is able to use
introduced plants, the loss of important native food plants, such as
cha[ntilde]ares, is most likely a limiting factor for the Chilean
woodstar. Due to the scarcity of native trees, the species seems to
rely heavily on introduced olive trees for nesting. However, management
practices currently used in olive groves adversely impact the species
and its nests. Therefore, we find that habitat destruction is a threat
to the continued existence of the Chilean woodstar throughout its
range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
In 1987, the Chilean woodstar was listed in CITES Appendix II,
which includes species that are not necessarily threatened with
extinction, but may become so unless trade is subject to strict
regulation to avoid utilization incompatible with the species'
survival. International trade in specimens of Appendix II species is
authorized through permits or certificates under certain circumstances,
including verification that trade will not be detrimental to the
survival of the species in the wild and that the material was legally
acquired (UNEP-WCMC 2008a).
Since its listing in 1987, there have been no CITES-permitted
international transactions in the Chilean woodstar (Caldwell 2008, in
litt.). Therefore, we believe that international trade is not a factor
influencing the species' status in the wild. In addition, we are
unaware of any other information currently available that indicates
that hunting or overutilization of the Chilean woodstar for commercial,
recreation, scientific, or education purposes has ever occurred. As
such, we do not consider this factor to be a threat to the species.
C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that
indicate disease or predation poses a threat to this species. As a
result, we are not considering disease or predation to be a
contributing factor to the continued existence of the Chilean woodstar.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Chilean woodstar is listed as an ``endangered and rare''
species in Chile under Decree No. 151--Classification of Wild Species
According to Their Conservation Status (ECOLEX 2007). In 2006, it was
also designated as a national monument under Decree No. 2--Declaring
National Monuments of the Wild Fauna Huemul, Long-tailed Chinchilla,
Short-tailed Chinchilla, Andean Condor, Chilean Woodstar, and Juan
Fernandez Firecrown, which prohibits all hunting and capture of these
species (ECOLEX 2006). However, this regulation is not necessary to
reduce an existing threat to the Chilean woodstar because we do not
consider hunting or collection (Factor B) to be a threat to the
species.
The Chilean woodstar is listed in Appendix II of CITES (UNEP-WCMC
2008b). CITES is an international treaty among 173 nations, including
Chile, Peru, and the United States, that entered into force in 1975
(UNEP-WCMC 2008a). In the United States, CITES is implemented through
the U.S. Endangered Species Act (Act). The Act designates the Secretary
of the Interior as the Scientific and Management Authorities to
implement the treaty with all functions carried out by the Service.
Under this treaty, countries work together to ensure that international
trade in animal and plant species is not detrimental to the survival of
wild populations by regulating the import, export, re-export, and
introduction from the sea of CITES-listed animal and plant species
(USFWS 2008). As discussed under Factor B, we do not consider
international trade to be a threat to the Chilean woodstar. Therefore,
this international treaty does not reduce any current threats to the
species. Any international trade that occurs in the future would be
effectively regulated under CITES.
We are not aware of any regulatory mechanisms that effectively
limit or restrict habitat destruction, or high-pressure spraying of
olive trees with water to reduce mold, two of the threats to the
Chilean woodstar (see Factor A).
As discussed under Factor E, pesticides are also a threat to the
Chilean woodstar, and there are some regulations that limit or ban
certain pesticides. For example, current regulations in Chile prohibit
the importation, production, and application of DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin,
Chlordane and Heptachlor (Altieri and Rojas 1999, p. 64). Despite such
regulations, large-scale use of pesticides such as Parathion, Paraquat,
Lindane, and pentachlorophenol--all severely restricted or even banned
in Europe, Japan, and the United States--continues in Chile (Rozas
1995, as cited in Altieri and Rojas 1999, p. 64). Furthermore,
international standards and quarantine requirements, imposed by
countries importing Chilean fruits to limit quarantined insects, have
acted to increase pesticide use in Chile (see Factor E) (Altieri and
Rojas 1999, p. 63).
Summary of Factor D
We are not aware of any regulatory mechanisms that effectively
limit or restrict habitat destruction, or high-pressure spraying of
olive trees with water to reduce mold, two of the threats to the
Chilean woodstar. Although there are some regulations in Chile that
limit or ban certain pesticides, other kinds of pesticides are still
widely used in Chile, especially by fruit growers. Therefore, we find
that the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to mitigate the
current threats to the Chilean woodstar throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
Pesticides: The use of Malathion, Dimethoate, and other chemicals
to control the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) in the
1960s and early 1970s correlates with declines in Chilean woodstar
abundance (Estades et al. 2007, pp. 171-172). Although Malathion is
only slightly to moderately toxic to wild birds (Pascual 1994 and
George et al. 1995, as cited in Estades et al. 2007, p. 171), the
systemic insecticide Dimethoate is very toxic and is known to
contaminate the nectar of flowers (Baker et al. 1980, as cited in
Estades et al. 2007, p. 171). The Chilean government program to
eradicate the Mediterranean fruit fly in the Arica-Azapa area has been
reduced since the 1970s (Olalquiaga and Lobos 1993, as cited in Estades
et al. 2007, p. 171), which likely has reduced this threat to Chilean
woodstar (Estades et al. 2007, p. 171). Although the governmental
pesticide applications for the eradication of the Mediterranean fruit
fly may be declining, private farmers still rely on a heavy use of
highly toxic chemicals to keep their crops pest-free (Salazar and Araya
2001, as cited in Estades et al. 2007, p. 171), and their use shows no
signs of decline (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172).
As a result of international standards and quarantine requirements
imposed by countries importing Chilean fruits, there is an overwhelming
incentive for farmers to continue to extensively use chemical pest
control (Altieri and Rojas 1999, p. 63). If the inspection of a
shipment of Chilean fruits detects just one specimen of a quarantined
insect pest, the result is the automatic rejection of the entire
shipment of fruit (Altieri and Rojas 1999, p. 63). Therefore, Chilean
fruit growers intensively spray their crops to completely eliminate all
pests in order to avoid the risk of shipment rejection and its
associated
[[Page 79248]]
economic losses (Altieri and Rojas 1999, p. 63).
Estades et al. (2007, p. 170) found that significant amounts of
pesticides are still being used, particularly in the Azapa Valley, and
there is at least one recent case where the application of insecticides
at a plant nursery resulted in the death of a female Chilean woodstar.
Furthermore, in a study to estimate the population of the Chilean
woodstar, Estades (2007, in litt.) found a decrease in the population
of the species in the Azapa Valley between 2006 and 2007. Estades
(2007, in litt.) associates this decline with the substantial increase
in agricultural development, related to the cultivation of tomatoes, in
the Azapa Valley in recent years. The cultivation of tomatoes in this
area of Chile requires a high demand of pesticides, and thus represents
a growing threat to the Chilean woodstar (Estades 2007, in litt.).
Competition from the Peruvian sheartail: Estades et al. (2007, p.
172) hypothesized that the Peruvian sheartail (Thaumastura cora), which
has experienced rapid population increases within the range of the
Chilean woodstar, is a strong competitor for food or space because: (1)
These species have morphological similarities which, in hummingbirds,
indicates they may require similar food resources; (2) there appears to
be spatial segregation between the species; and (3) antagonistic
interactions have been documented (Estades et al. 2007, p. 169).
Because the sheartail is more aggressive than the Chilean woodstar, it
is believed to displace the woodstar within its range (Estades et al.
2007, pp. 169, 172). In Azapa, Peruvian sheartails have occupied the
lower parts of the valley where there is a large supply of flowers in
residential areas year-round (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172). Chilean
woodstars, on the other hand, are primarily located in the middle part
of the valley where the dominant land use is agriculture (Estades et
al. 2007, p. 172). As a result, the Chilean woodstar has a much higher
risk of exposure to pesticides (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172). Because
certain pesticides used within the range of the Chilean woodstar are
known to cause mortality, increased exposure to these pesticides
increases the species' risk of population decline and extinction.
In a study to estimate the population of the Chilean woodstar,
Estades (2007, in litt.) found an increase in the population of the
species in the Vitor Valley (Chaca-Codpa area) between 2006 and 2007.
Estades (2007, in litt.) suggests that one of the reasons for the
population increase in the Vitor Valley during this time period was due
to the fact that no Peruvian sheartails were observed in Chaca. This
observation supports the theory that Peruvian sheartails are a
competitor of the Chilean woodstar (Estades et al. 2007, pp. 163, 172).
In addition, the abundance of Chilean woodstar nests observed in the
species' only breeding site (in the Chaca area of the Vitor Valley)
appears to be related to the absence of Peruvian sheartails in this
location (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 6). Furthermore, the high
abundance of Peruvian sheartails at Azapa could explain the absence of
nesting by the Chilean woodstar at otherwise appropriate sites, such as
the Azapa Valley (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 6).
Reproduction: Another study in the Azapa and Vitor valleys in 2006
found Chilean woodstars nesting in only one location, a site in the
Chaca area of the Vitor Valley that is less than 2.5 ac (1 ha) in size
(Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 6). Of the 19 nests that were monitored,
12 failed; the cause of these nest failures is unknown (Estades and
Aguirre 2006, p. 8). The daily nest failure rate was 3.21 percent,
which is higher than has been observed in other hummingbird species
(Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 8). The probability of nest success was
23.8 percent, which is also higher than has been observed for other
hummingbird species (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 8). Estades and
Aguirre (2006, p. 8) note that the method used to calculate both of
these values for other hummingbirds (by Baltosser 1986, as cited in
Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 8) is not exactly the same as the method
used in this study. Although the values of reproductive success are
within normal range, the high percentage of nest failures is troubling
for a species that has such a small population size (Estades and
Aguirre 2006, p. 8).
The loss of hatchlings, probably due to a lack of space in the nest
itself, also indicates that recruitment of the Chilean woodstar is low
(Estades and Aguirre 2006, pp. 8, 10). If you take into account that
the flowering period for cha[ntilde]ares and citrus is relatively short
(a maximum of two months), the possibility of Chilean woodstars
producing a second clutch in the spring is almost zero (Estades and
Aguirre 2006, p. 10). Without a second nesting period, the Chilean
woodstar is not able to compensate for a loss of its first, and most
likely only, clutch (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 10). All data suggest
that the recruitment capability of the Chilean woodstar is low and
that, currently, the majority of reproduction is taking place only in
the Vitor Valley (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 10).
Small Population Size and Restricted Range: The Chilean woodstar
has experienced a population decline since the 1960s and now consists
of less than 2,000 individuals distributed within two valleys (Estades
et al. 2007, p. 170). Species tend to have a higher risk of extinction
if they occupy a small geographic range, occur at low density, occupy a
high trophic level and exhibit low reproductive rates (Purvis et al.
2000, p. 1949). Small populations are more affected by demographic
stochasticity, local catastrophes, and inbreeding (Pimm et al. 1988,
pp. 757, 773-775). The small, declining population makes the species
vulnerable to loss of genetic variation due to inbreeding depression
and genetic drift. This, in turn, compromises a species' ability to
adapt genetically to changing environments (Frankham 1996, p. 1507) and
reduces fitness, and increases extinction risk (Reed and Frankham 2003,
pp. 233-234).
Summary of Factor E
Other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence
of the Chilean woodstar include extensive use of pesticides by farmers
and competition from the Peruvian sheartail. These threats have been
associated with the decline in the population of the species and the
lack of nest sites in the Azapa Valley. Because the Chilean woodstar is
currently breeding in only one site (in the Chaca area of the Vitor
Valley) and has a low recruitment rate, restricted range, and a small
population size, any threats to the species are further magnified.
Therefore, we find that other natural or manmade factors are a threat
to the continued existence of the Chilean woodstar throughout its
range.
Status Determination for the Chilean Woodstar
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the Chilean woodstar. The species is currently
at risk throughout all of its range due to a number of immediate and
ongoing threats. The Chilean woodstar is restricted to two river
valleys, where there has been extensive modification of its primary
habitat. It is threatened by agricultural practices, in particular the
use of pesticides and high-pressure spraying of olive trees to remove
mold, as well as competition from the more aggressive Peruvian
sheartail. The magnitude of these threats is exacerbated by the
species' restricted range, only one breeding site, low recruitment
rate, and extremely small
[[Page 79249]]
population size. An insect outbreak causing increased use of toxic
pesticides in agricultural fields, a series of catastrophic events, or
other detrimental interactions between environmental and demographic
factors could result in the rapid extinction of the Chilean woodstar.
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Based on the immediate and ongoing significant threats to the
Chilean woodstar throughout its entire range, as described above, we
determine that the Chilean woodstar is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are proposing to
list the Chilean woodstar as an endangered species throughout all of
its range.
III. St. Lucia Forest Thrush (Cichlhermina lherminieri sanctaeluciae)
Species Description
The St. Lucia forest thrush (Cichlhermina lherminieri
sanctaeluciae) (hereafter referred to as ``thrush'') is a subspecies of
the forest thrush (C. lherminieri) in the family Turdidae. It is a
medium-sized bird, approximately 10 inches (in) (25 to 27 centimeters
(cm)) in length (BLI 2000). This subspecies has all dark upperparts, is
brownish below with white spots on the breast, flanks and upper belly,
and white lower belly. It has yellow legs and bill, and bare skin
around the eye (BLI 2000).
Taxonomy
This subspecies was first taxonomically described by P. L. Sclater
in 1880 (del Hoyo et al. 2005, p. 681).
Habitat and Life History
The St. Lucia forest thrush occupies mid- and high-altitude primary
and secondary moist forest habitat (Keith 1997, p. 105). The thrush
feeds on insects and berries from ground level to the forest canopy
(del Hoyo et al. 2005, p. 681; Raffaelle 1998, p. 381). It previously
gathered in large numbers in autumn to feed on berries (del Hoyo et al.
2005, p. 681). The thrush breeds in April and May and builds a cup-
shaped nest placed not far above the ground in a bush or tree (del Hoyo
et al. 2005, p. 681; Raffaelle 1998, p. 381). Clutch size ranges from
two to three eggs, and the eggs are blue-green in color (del Hoyo et
al. 2005, p. 681).
Historical Range and Distribution
Although we are unaware of any specific information on the
historical range and distribution of the St. Lucia forest thrush, we
assume that this subspecies has always been found only on the island of
St. Lucia.
Current Range and Distribution
The entire species of forest thrush is known from Montserrat,
Guadeloupe, Dominica, and St. Lucia. The St. Lucia forest thrush is
endemic to the island of St. Lucia in the West Indies (del Hoyo et al.
2005, p. 681). St. Lucia is an island in the Caribbean, between the
Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean, and is 238 square miles
(m\2\) (616 square kilometers (km\2\)) in area (CIA World Factbook
2008).
Population Estimates
This subspecies was considered numerous in the late 1800s (Semper
1872, as cited in Keith 1997, p. 105). We could find no historical
accounts of population size of this subspecies. The current population
status of the thrush is unknown, but recent sightings of this
subspecies are rare, with only six confirmed sightings on the island
over the last few years (Dornelly 2007, in litt.). These sightings
consist of one bird in the St. Lucia Nature Reserve, one near the town
of De Chassin in the north part of the island, and four individuals
along the De Cartiers Trail in the Quilesse Forest Reserve on the south
part of the island (Dornelly 2007, in litt.). A survey was conducted in
2007 to try to estimate the populations of various rare birds on the
island of St. Lucia including the thrush (Dornelly 2007, in litt.).
However, no thrushes were observed during the study period (Dornelly
2007, in litt.).
Conservation Status
The entire species of forest thrush (Cichlhermina lherminieri) is
classified as ``Vulnerable'' by IUCN, due to human-induced
deforestation and introduced predators (BLI 2008b).
Summary of Factors Affecting the St. Lucia Forest Thrush
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
The habitat of the St. Lucia forest thrush consists of mid- and
high-altitude primary and secondary moist forests (Keith 1997, p. 105).
Consistent with previous accounts, the most recent sightings of the
thrush were within this mid- to high-elevation moist forest habitat,
where in June and August of 2007, respectively, St. Lucia Forestry
Department staff sighted four birds in one location along the Des
Cartiers Trail in the south of the island, and one bird in De Chassin
in the north of the island (Dornelly 2007, in litt.).
As of 2004, natural forest occupied approximately 29,870 ac (12,088
ha) on the island of St. Lucia, 56 percent of which (16,727 ac (6,769
ha)) was within forest reserves and 43 percent (12,845 ac (5,198 ha))
was on private lands (Joint Annual Report (JAR) 2004, p. 42). The St.
Lucia Department of Forestry considers habitat quality within the
Forest Reserves to be high, but considers the habitat quality on
private lands to be ``less,'' since the Department has little control
over management of these private lands (Dornelly 2007, in litt.). In
2004, 633 ac (256 ha) of plantation forest existed within the forest
reserves consisting of three main timber tree species, and an
additional 615 ac (249 ha) of plantation forest existed on private
lands (JAR 2004, p. 42), but there is no information to suggest that
the thrush utilizes plantation forest habitat.
Historically, St. Lucia's policy that allowed open access to
``Common Property resources,'' combined with the country's high demand
for agricultural land, led to large-scale deforestation (GOSL 1993, as
cited in John 2000, p. 3), which reduced the thrush's habitat,
resulting in a rapid population decline of this subspecies (IUCN 2008).
The widespread deforestation that continues to this day suggests that
population numbers continue to decline as a result of this impact. A
potential impact of habitat destruction is exemplified by the Grand
Cayman thrush (Turdus ravidus), a species closely related to the St.
Lucia forest thrush, which went extinct as its habitat on the island
was progressively cleared (Johnston 1969, as cited in BLI 2008a).
In the 1980's, deforestation on St. Lucia was estimated at 1.9
percent per year due to banana cultivation. Although the banana
industry has faltered since that time, (GOSL 1993, as cited in John
2000, p. 3), according to the World Bank (2005, p. 1), farmers in St.
Lucia have continued to clear forests for cultivation, moving to higher
and steeper land. The government has encouraged this deforestation by
constructing roads into these remote areas, which further reduces
forest lands. Degradation of the hillside environment puts the more
productive lowlands at risk, and hurricanes and tropical storms
accelerate the
[[Page 79250]]
degradation process (World Bank 2005, p. 1).
As of 2004, 28.5 percent of the land on St. Lucia was used for
``intensive farming,'' and 26.3 percent was for ``mixed'' use purposes
(JAR 2004, p. 41). According to St. Lucia's 2007 Economic and Social
Review (p. 3), although the banana industry was negatively impacted by
the passage of Hurricane Dean in August, the overall outturn in
agriculture more than compensated for the banana decline, with a 7.6
percent increase in ``non-traditional crops.'' This is a strong
indication that increasing agriculture continues to put pressure on St.
Lucia's forest resources. Aside from agriculture, in the 21st century,
construction activities and development of the access road network has
been a leading cause of deforestation on St. Lucia (John 2000, pp. 3,
4).
Even within St. Lucia's Forest Reserves, the land is not protected
to such an extent that it is preserved in its natural condition.
According to St. Lucia's ``Forest, Soil, and Water Conservation
Ordinance 1946/1983,'' with permission of the Forestry Department, one
may ``injure, cut, fell, convert, remove, or harvest any tree or parts
thereof.'' Although it is illegal to occupy Forest Reserves for the
purposes of cultivation, squatting, or pasturing livestock (St. Lucia
Forestry Department n.d.), enforcement of these activities is
questionable, given that as of the year 2000, squatters occupied 247 ac
(100 ha) of area within forest reserves (John 2000, p. 3). As of the
year 2000, 4.5 miles (7.2 km) of roads existed within the forest
reserves, providing access to forest resources within the reserves.
Typical uses of forest resources include fuelwood collection for
heating and cooking purposes, as well as traditional use of non-wood
forest products. Certain species of forest trees are used for
production of brooms, canoes, and incense, while the bark of other tree
species are used to produce fermented drinks, and liannes are used in
the craft industry (John 2000, pp. 6, 7). Removal of these forest
products either reduces the quality or the availability of nesting,
feeding, and breeding habitat of the thrush, thereby potentially
reducing population numbers and the reproductive success of breeding
birds.
Summary of Factor A
Both historical and current information suggests that this species
is restricted to natural forests on the island, which, based on recent
data, have been reduced to approximately 29,870 ac (12,088 ha) on the
island. A large percentage of the remaining natural forest that occurs
on private lands in St. Lucia (43 percent) is subject to ongoing loss
from timber harvest, conversion of forest lands to agriculture,
construction activities, and road development. These ongoing activities
result in destruction of the limited habitat available for the thrush,
which has historically been attributed to a rapid decline in this
subspecies' population numbers. Although to a lesser extent than on
private lands, the forests within St. Lucia's forest reserves (56
percent of the remaining forest) are also subject to destruction and
modification from activities such as timber removal, fuelwood
gathering, and removal of non-wood forest products for traditional use,
activities which destroy and degrade the thrush's habitat. Therefore,
we find that the ongoing destruction and modification of the thrush's
habitat is a threat to the continued existence of the St. Lucia forest
thrush throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that
indicates overutilization of the St. Lucia forest thrush for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes currently
poses a threat to this subspecies. As a result, we are not considering
overutilization to be a contributing factor to the continued existence
of the St. Lucia forest thrush.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease: We are not aware of any scientific or commercial
information that indicates that disease poses a threat to this
subspecies. As a result, we are not considering disease to be a
contributing factor to the continued existence of the St. Lucia forest
thrush.
Predation: The St. Lucia forest thrush is suspected to be impacted
by predation from an introduced mongoose (Raffaelle et al. 1998, p.
381). The Asian mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) was introduced to the
island of St. Lucia in the early 1900s (Hoagland et al. 1989, p. 624)
and is considered an invasive species. Mongoose have been introduced to
many island chains for the purpose of controlling small rodents,
however their diet is not restricted to rodents; mongoose are known to
eat birds as well. Morley and Winder (2007, p. 1) found that in the
Fiji islands, some bird species were primarily associated with those
islands that were free of mongoose. Any effects of mongoose
introduction detected, however, were `historical,' as mongoose had been
on these islands for at least 20 years prior to their study. Bird
assemblages on islands where mongoose had been introduced were (1)
dominated by introduced bird species that are relatively unaffected by
predation, or (2) native arboreal species that avoid predation, as
mongoose rarely venture up into the forest canopy. Some researchers
have suggested that ground-nesting bird populations have established a
predator-prey equilibrium with mongooses in the Caribbean (Westermann
1953, as cited in Hays and Conant 2006, p. 7). Although the thrush is
not known as a ground-nesting bird, it is reported to nest in shrubs
and trees near the forest floor. On St. Lucia, the mongoose and other
introduced predators, such as birds and cats, have contributed to the
decline of another native bird species, the White-breasted thrasher
(Ramphocinclus brachurus), adding to the pressures of habitat
destruction (Collar et al. 1992, p. 824). The degree to which mongoose
are responsible for the decline of bird species is often hard to
assess, because of exacerbating factors such as the introduction of
other species, such as rats and cats, which often have impacts to bird
populations as well. Therefore, we do not have enough information to
assess whether predation by an introduced mongoose is a significant
threat to the St. Lucia forest thrush. In addition, we are not aware of
any information on the potential impacts of predation from other
predators (native or nonnative) on this subspecies.
Summary of Factor C
We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that
indicate that disease or predation currently poses a threat to this
subspecies. Although the St. Lucia forest thrush is thought to be
impacted by predation from an introduced mongoose, we do not have any
data to show that mongoose predation is a current threat to the thrush.
As a result, we are not considering disease or predation to be a
contributing factor to the continued existence of the St. Lucia forest
thrush.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The St. Lucia forest thrush is a ``protected wildlife'' species
under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) of 1980, which
has prohibited hunting of this subspecies since 1980 (ECOLEX n.d.(b)).
In addition, the WPA prohibits taking, damaging or destroying of eggs
or young, or the damage of a nest of ``protected wildlife'' species
(ECOLEX n.d.(b)). Where habitat for this species occurs within Forest
Reserves or
[[Page 79251]]
Protected Forests, it is protected from harvest without approval by the
Forestry Department under the Forest, Soil and Water Conservation
Ordinance Act of 1946, amended in 1983 (ECOLEX n.d.(a)). However, we do
not consider overutilization (Factor B) to be a current threat to the
St. Lucia forest thrush, so these laws do not address any of the
threats to this subspecies.
The Forest, Soil and Water Conservation Ordinance Act of 1946,
amended in 1983, authorizes the St. Lucia Minister of Agriculture to
establish Forest Reserves on government land and Protected Forests on
private lands (John 2000, p. 7). Habitat in Forest Reserves and
Protected Forests is conserved primarily for the purpose of protecting
watershed processes and preventing soil erosion. No legal commercial
timber harvest occurs on these lands. However, fuelwood collecting,
removal of non-wood forest products for traditional use, and timber
removal (with permission of the Forestry Department) still occur in
some Forest Reserves. Where suitable habitat for the thrush exists in
Forest Reserves, it is assumed to be of high quality (Dornelly 2007, in
litt.). However, small illegal homesteads occur on approximately 247 ac
(100 ha) of the Forest Reserves, and residents of these homesteads
utilize the timber and other forest resources, such as fuelwood, in the
surrounding areas (John 2000, p. 3).
Timber harvest on private lands other than Protected Forests is not
regulated in St. Lucia. As discussed above under Factor A,
deforestation on private lands as a result of timber harvest,
conversion of forest lands to agriculture, construction activities, and
road development is ongoing. It is not known how much of the private
natural forest habitat on the island is occupied by the St. Lucia
forest thrush. However, based on the localities of the few recent
confirmed sightings of this subspecies, and the proportion (43 percent)
of natural forest that occurs on private lands, the St. Lucia forest
thrush likely inhabits at least some of the private lands on the
island.
Summary of Factor D
St. Lucia has developed numerous laws and regulations to manage
wildlife and forest resources on the island. However, these laws do not
adequately protect the habitat of the St. Lucia forest thrush from
destruction or modification. Suitable thrush habitat within Forest
Reserves is provided some level of protection from existing laws
designed to protect watershed processes and prevent soil erosion.
However, these laws do not adequately protect the habitat of this
subspecies because they allow non-commercial uses of forest resources
(including nest trees) to continue. Natural forest habitat on private
lands is unregulated, and although the rate of habitat destruction and
modification has likely decreased since the 1980s, conversion of forest
land to agriculture and timber harvest still continues. As a result of
the lack of regulatory protection of the natural forest habitats on
private lands and the limited protection of Forest Reserves, we find
that the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to mitigate the
current threats to the St. Lucia forest thrush throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
Bare-Eyed Robin: Competition with the bare-eyed robin (Turdus
nudigenis), which colonized the island in the 1950s, has been
identified as a factor impacting this subspecies (Raffaelle et al.
1998, p. 381). However, we do not have enough information to assess
whether competition with the bare-eyed robin is a significant threat to
the St. Lucia forest thrush.
Shiny Cowbird: Brood parasitism by the shiny cowbird (Molothrus
bonarientsis) which colonized the island in 1931, is also suspected as
a factor impacting this subspecies (Raffaelle et al. 1998, p. 381). The
shiny cowbird is a known ``brood parasite'' (i.e., they lay their eggs
in the nests of other birds and do not provide any parental care for
their own offspring). When the eggs of the brood parasite hatch, these
chicks often push out the eggs or chicks of the host birds and are
raised by the host species. Parental care that the host birds provide
to the young parasites is care denied to their own young. This often
has a detrimental effect on the reproductive success of the hosts,
reducing population growth. The shiny cowbird is an extreme host
generalist; its eggs have been found in the nests of over 200 species
of birds (Friedmann and Kiff 1985 and Mason 1986, as cited in Cruz et
al. 1989, p. 524). Shiny cowbirds are known to parasitize other bird
species nests on St. Lucia (Cruz et al. 1989, p. 527). Many of the
documented host species have not evolved effective defense or counter-
defense mechanisms during the 70+ years the cowbird has occupied the
island (Post et al. 1990, p. 461). Although brood parasitism by the
shiny cowbird has the potential to impact the thrush, we could find no
documented cases of brood parasitism on the St. Lucia forest thrush.
Small Population Size: The presumed small size of the St. Lucia
forest thrush population, based on only six confirmed sightings of the
subspecies in the last few years (Dornelly 2007, in litt.), makes this
subspecies vulnerable to any of several risks, including inbreeding
depression, loss of genetic variation, and accumulation of new
mutations. Inbreeding can have individual or population-level
consequences either by increasing the phenotypic expression (the
outward appearance or observable structure, function or behavior of a
living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or by reducing the
overall fitness of individuals in the population (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Small, isolated
populations of wildlife species are also susceptible to demographic
problems (Shaffer 1981, p. 131), which may include reduced reproductive
success of individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios. Once a
population is reduced below a certain number of individuals, it tends
to rapidly decline towards extinction (Franklin 1980, pp. 147-148;
Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 25; Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65;
Soul[eacute] 1987, p. 181).
A general approximation of minimum viable population size is the
50/500 rule (Shaffer 1981, p. 133; Soul[eacute] 1980, pp. 160-162).
This rule states that an effective population (Ne) of 50
individuals is the minimum size required to avoid imminent risks from
inbreeding. Ne represents the number of animals in a
population that actually contribute to reproduction, and is often much
smaller than the census, or total number of individuals in the
population (N). Furthermore, the rule states that the long-term fitness
of a population requires an Ne of at least 500 individuals,
so that it will not lose its genetic diversity over time and will
maintain an enhanced capacity to adapt to changing conditions.
Therefore, an analysis of the fitness of this population would be a
good indicator of the subspecies' overall survivability.
Although the current population status of the St. Lucia forest
thrush is unknown, we presume the population of the thrush is small,
since recent sightings of this subspecies are rare, with only six
confirmed sightings on the island over the last few years (Dornelly
2007, in litt.). Even though a survey was conducted in 2007 to try to
estimate the populations of various rare birds on the island of St.
Lucia including the thrush, no thrushes were observed during the study
period (Dornelly 2007, in litt.). As a result, we presume the size of
the St. Lucia forest thrush population falls below the minimum
effective
[[Page 79252]]
population size required to avoid risks from inbreeding (Ne
= 50 individuals). We also presume the population size of this
subspecies falls below the upper threshold (Ne = 500
individuals) required for long-term fitness of a population that will
not lose its genetic diversity over time and will maintain an enhanced
capacity to adapt to changing conditions. As such, we currently
consider the St. Lucia forest thrush to be at risk due to lack of near-
and long-term viability.
Stochastic Events: The St. Lucia forest thrush's small population
size makes this subspecies particularly vulnerable to the threat of
adverse random, naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic activity,
tropical storms and hurricanes) that could destroy individuals and
their habitat. St. Lucia is a geologically active area, resulting in a
significant risk of catastrophic natural events. It is subject to
volcanic activity and hurricanes (CIA World Factbook 2008).
St. Lucia is a volcanic island (University of the West Indies
Seismic Research Centre n.d.(a)). Historically, there have been no
magmatic eruptions on St. Lucia (i.e., eruptions involving the
explosive ejection of magma) (University of the West Indies Seismic
Research Centre n.d.(b)). However, there have been several minor
phreatic (steam) explosions in the Sulphur Springs area of St. Lucia
(University of the West Indies Seismic Research Centre n.d.(b)),
``which spread a thin layer of cinders (ash) far and wide'' (Lefort de
Latour 1787, as cited in University of the West Indies Seismic Research
Centre n.d.(b)). The occurrence of occasional swarms (a sequence of
many earthquakes striking in a relatively short period of time and may
last for days, weeks, or even months) of shallow earthquakes together
with the vigorous hot spring activity in southern St. Lucia indicate
that this area is still potentially active and the island can therefore
expect volcanic eruptions in the future (University of the West Indies
Seismic Research Centre n.d.(b)). On Montserrat, where another
subspecies of the forest thrush (Cichlherminia lherminieri lawrencii)
is found, volcanic activity caused a reduction in the range of the
subspecies by two-thirds (in 1995-1997) (G. Hilton in litt., as cited
in BLI 2008b), and in 2001, heavy ash falls resulted in loss of habitat
(Continga 2002, as cited in BLI 2008b). Because of the similarity in
ecology, taxonomy, and habitat requirements between the subspecies on
Monserrat and the St. Lucia forest thrush, volcanic activity on St.
Lucia could have similar effects on the St. Lucia forest thrush
population.
Tropical storms and hurricanes occur in the Caribbean, and can have
severe impacts on terrestrial ecosystems on small islands. A primary
impact of forest habitats is the damage caused to trees by high winds.
Trees are often blown over or sustain damage to trunks and limbs. These
types of impacts can result in a major habitat loss to the St. Lucia
forest thrush. In addition, there is often damage to soil productivity
due to landslides and excess soil erosion (John 2000, p. 19). St. Lucia
has experienced an increase in the number of hurricanes and severe
tropical storms over the last 30 years. After hurricane Allen in 1980,
at least 55 percent of all dominant tree species on the island had
broken branches and many had lost large portions of their crowns
(Whitman 1980, as cited in John 2000, p. 18). The indirect effects
occur in the aftermath of the storm when species experience loss of
food supplies and foraging substrates, loss of nests, loss of nest
sites (trees) and roost sites (John 2000, p. 20). Moreover, these
indirect effects are likely to increase their vulnerability to
predation. With hurricanes and tropical storms, species are also
exposed to the strong winds which can displace individuals off of the
island into the surrounding open ocean environment (John 2000, p. 20).
Some of these displaced birds are likely blown far out to sea, and may
not be able to make it back to land in their weakened state. In
general, the most vulnerable terrestrial wildlife populations have a
diet of nectar, fruit, or seeds; nest, roost or forage on large old
trees; require a closed canopy forest; have special microclimate
requirements; or live in habitat where the vegetation has a slow
recovery rate (John 2000, p. 20). Small populations with these traits
are at a greater risk to hurricane induced extinction, particularly if
they exist in small isolated habitat fragments (John 2000, p. 20).
Summary of Factor E
We presume the population of the St. Lucia forest thrush is small
since there have only been six confirmed sightings of the subspecies in
the last few years. The thrush's small population size makes this
subspecies particularly vulnerable to the threat of adverse random,
naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic activity, tropical storms,
and hurricanes) that could destroy individuals and their habitat. The
occurrence of occasional swarms of shallow earthquakes, along with
vigorous hot spring activity, indicates that St. Lucia could still be
volcanically active, and future volcanic eruptions are expected.
Tropical storms and hurricanes are naturally occurring events in the
Caribbean; however, the frequency of these events has increased over
the last 30 years. These high-intensity events damage forest habitats,
which are currently very restricted (approximately 29,870 ac (12,088
ha)) on the island due to timber harvest and agricultural conversions.
It can take many years for forested areas to fully recover from the
damage caused by tropical storms and hurricanes. Therefore, we find
that the subspecies' presumed small population size and restricted
range due to deforestation, and the increase in naturally occurring
events that damage the thrush's habitat, are a threat to the continued
existence of the St. Lucia forest thrush throughout its range.
Status Determination for the St. Lucia Forest Thrush
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present and potential future
threats faced by the St. Lucia forest thrush. The subspecies is
currently at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of
habitat destruction and modification (Factor A), lack of near- and
long-term viability associated with the thrush's presumed small
population size (Factor E), and random, naturally occurring events such
as volcanic activity, tropical storms, and hurricanes (Factor E).
The St. Lucia forest thrush is presumed to be rare based on the
limited availability of suitable habitat and the fact that there have
been only a few confirmed sightings of this subspecies over the last
several years. The primary factor impacting the continued existence of
the thrush is habitat loss and degradation, as a result of
deforestation from timber harvest and agricultural conversions.
Although 56 percent of the natural forests remaining on St. Lucia (as
of 2004) is partially protected through establishment of a network of
Forest Reserves, these forests are still subject to destruction and
modification from activities such as timber removal, fuelwood
collecting, and removal of non-wood forest products for traditional
use. Approximately 43 percent of the natural forest habitats on which
this subspecies depends occur on private lands. Deforestation on
private lands is an ongoing threat to the St. Lucia forest thrush, due
to the lack of regulatory protection of natural forests on private
lands and the continued loss of these forests through timber harvest,
conversions to agriculture, construction activities, and road
development.
The island of St. Lucia is a geologically active area, resulting in
a
[[Page 79253]]
significant risk of catastrophic natural events. The thrush's presumed
small population size makes this subspecies particularly vulnerable to
the threat of adverse random, naturally occurring events such as
volcanic activity, tropical storms, and hurricanes that could destroy
individuals and their habitat.
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Based on the immediate and ongoing significant threats to the
St. Lucia forest thrush throughout its entire range, as described
above, we determine that the St. Lucia forest thrush is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we are proposing
to list St. Lucia forest thrush as an endangered species throughout all
of its range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results
in conservation actions by Federal governments, private agencies and
groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened,
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated.
However, given that the Andean flamingo, Chilean woodstar, and St.
Lucia forest thrush are not native to the United States, no critical
habitat is being proposed for designation in this rule.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes limited financial assistance for
the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the
Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b)
and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation
programs for foreign endangered species and to provide assistance for
such programs in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. As such, these prohibitions would be applicable to
the Andean flamingo, Chilean woodstar, and St. Lucia forest thrush.
These prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to ``take'' (take
includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
collect, or to attempt any of these) within the United States or upon
the high seas, import or export, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or
ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial
activity or to sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce, any endangered wildlife species. It also is illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife
that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply
to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy with National Marine Fisheries
Service, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in
Endangered Species Act Activities,'' published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate independent specialists regarding this proposed
rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our final
determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We
will invite these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment
period on our specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the
proposal to list the Andean flamingo, the Chilean woodstar, and the St.
Lucia forest thrush as endangered.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if we receive any requests for hearings. We must receive your request
for a public hearing within 45 days after the date of this Federal
Register publication (see DATES). Such requests must be made in writing
and be addressed to the Chief of the Division of Scientific Authority
at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We
will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested,
and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as
how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at
least 15 days before the first hearing.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of
the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
[[Page 79254]]
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request
from the Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author(s) of this proposed rule is staff of the
Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding a new entry for ``Flamingo,
Andean,'' ``Thrush, St. Lucia forest,'' and ``Woodstar, Chilean'' in
alphabetical order under ``BIRDS'' to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Flamingo, Andean................. Phoenicoparrus Argentina, Bolivia, Entire............. E ........... NA NA
andinus. Chile, and Peru.
* * * * * * *
Thrush, St. Lucia forest......... Cichlherminia West Indies--St. Entire............. E ........... NA NA
lherminieri Lucia.
sanctaeluciae.
* * * * * * *
Woodstar, Chilean................ Eulidia yarrellii... Chile and Peru..... Entire............. E ........... NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: December 16, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-30464 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P